panels thinking about the policy implications of the changing electorate that was vividly on display last night. you have been a terrific and -- what's the word -- endurance in this audience. [laughter] victoria book goes final comments. >> reaction to last night's election results from harry reid and house speaker john boehner. and analysis from the national journal. last night and democrats held on to their senate majority. harry reid talked about the election results. we will hear from republican john bellair. -- john boehner. >> i am glad to be back.

it was a late night, early morning. to it is clearly we're going increase our majority. but the results show a number of things. a number of things for certain. one is that we're the party of diversity. look at the results from all over the country. i'm looking forward to working with so many great accomplished centers. i have talked to virtually everyone of them. when i came to the senate, barbara mikulski was it as far as women. now one-third of our caucus is women. the remarkable work done by all these great centers to be.

but the election is over and we have enormous challenges ahead of us. they're right here. and we have to sit down and go to work on it now, not wait. this was the message the american people sent from all over and that is they're tired of these partisan gridlocks. they're tired of things like i have one goal, to defeat obama. that is gone. obama was reelected overwhelmingly. the american people want us to work together. republicans want us to work together. democrats want us to work together. they want to balance the -- a balanced approach to everything. especially with the huge deficit and taxes are part of that. i can remember my first president after i had been

selected as the democratic leader. i was so afraid, i really was. and as i do on occasion, off the cuff, i said i know how to fight. i know how to dance. i do not dance as well as i fight but i would much rather dense hair -- any time and i still feel that way. it is better to dance than to fight. it is better to work together ho. everything does not have to be a fight. that is how it has been the last couple of years. everyone should comprehend especially my senate friends that legislation is the art of compromise with consensus building.

that is political scientists have studied this for generations, they continue to say the way we get things done is to work together. we need republicans to help us. there is -- compromise is not a dirty word. i am willing to negotiate any time on any issue. i have spent a lot of time here but before i came here, that is what i did. i was a lawyer. i had lots and lots of jury trials and frankly, any time we had a jury trial in one sense it was a failure. we should have been able to work something out. and so i am convinced that we need to start working together a lot. gridlock is not the solution. it is the problem.

that is what has happened. i repeat, to have a leader of the republicans in the senate say his number one goal is to defeat obama, that is how we legislated for two years. i filed cloture on 17 different judges. that has never been done before. there is no time for excuses in any way. it is time we get to work. we can achieve really good things and work together. that is what the american people said last night in a big way. i'm going to do everything within my power to be as conciliatory as possible. i want to work together. i want everyone to understand you can push us around. we want to work together.

questions? >> i talked this morning to a couple of republicans who said some things, [inaudible] mitch mcconnell and leadership could not push for enough amendments for votes on amendments like marriage or repealing health care or guns. republicans will push hard. >> how about six weeks on contraception in the highway bill. is that a pretty good start? do you remember that? >> it looks like there are motions to proceed. do you have any changes -- plans to change the filibuster? >> you ask the question, i am answering it. the rules have been abused and we're going to work to change them.

a're going to make the senate meaningful place and we will make it so we can get things done so people who want boats on what you mentioned, six marriage and abortion, the american people are interested in doing something about the staggering debt we have. the election was pretty clear in a number of ways. the president campaigned around the country saying we know what the problems are. we just need some revenue. that was the issue. the mandate was, look at the exit polls and the polling. the vast majority of the american people, rich, poor, everyone agrees that the rich, richest of the rich have to help. >> on the fiscal cliff, speaker banner is saying no increase in taxes.

>> i had a conversation this morning with the speaker, it was a pleasant conversation as all my conversations with him are. he has been -- is doing an event and we will wait to see what he has to say there. i have a fine relationship with him. my staff works well with his staff and this is not something that i am going to draw lines in the sand. i think we need to work together. >> [inaudible] >> of course. it is so simple. >> what is your take on that? is that something that must be done? >> republicans must make a choice. we're willing to work it out. i do not know how they think they can benefit waiting until

sequestration. >> [inaudible] broad solution to the fiscal cliff -- >> i am not for kicking the can down the road. we have done that for too much and we know what the issue is, we need to solve the issue. waiting for a month, six weeks, six months, that is not going to solve the problem. we know what needs to be done. i think that we should just roll up our sleeves and get it done. i have been leading to the right for to much. >> the president said last week that will hit the debt ceiling again. are you prepared -- >> the debt ceiling will come after the first year. they tried it before. they, the republicans. they tried it before. we're not going to raise the debt ceiling.

they want to go through that again. bee, but we're not going to held subject to something that was done as a matter of fact in all previous administrations. >> [inaudible] >> if it has to be raised, we will raise it. >> abuse of to -- spoken to -- have you spoken to any other white house official about what they will speak out about? >> i had a conversation with the president last night and we're going to work together. the president was very clear. more than once in his very fine speech he gave the american people last night after he was declared the winner and he wants -- we will do that. i like everybody down there but i am listening to the president first. >> a conversation with angus

king last night, what was your impression about his decision? >> i talked to him on several occasions and we have some pleasant conversations. he is going to make a decision soon as to what he's going to do. you should talk to him. >> he will not accept any tax deal. is that your position, too? >> as i tried to make it clear here, there was a message sent to us by the american people. based on the campaign. that is people making all this money have to contribute a little bit more. in all the exit polling, the polling we have done, the vast majority support that. including rich people. they have a smile, this diatribe

by the republicans, some republicans saying we're not going to raise taxes on business, please, everybody. we now -- know the president, will agree that there -- we all agree that there is 2% of people who are worried, 3% cut in -- donald trump. we should worry about him. >> given the results of the election, where does immigration reform fall in your priority list? >> high priority. i've tried, i spent more time on immigration than any other issue and it is interesting what

has happened. mccain has not been with us on immigration reform. the only thing we need to get immigration reform done is fewer republican votes. could we get a few republicans to join us? it is in our list and we will have some votes on it. not for political reasons. it is the wrong thing to do to not have confidence in immigration reform. the system is broken and needs to be fixed. >> [inaudible] >> it is high on my list, yes. >> given that house republicans lost and senate democrats pick them up, despite the fact that a lot of the washington dynamics have been the same, do you feel like the democrats have

leverage? >> your statement -- this is as far faces you can be. we have an overwhelming reelection and we picked of seats in the senate, we pick up seats in the house. that is not the status quo. >> [inaudible] then governor romney in the popular vote and getting 10 million votes less than 2008. does he have a mandate [inaudible] >> i am not going to get into the george bush, social security type thing. i have things that we're obligated to do for the american people. one is to get our problems solved fiscally and maintain a strong relationship and something we have not talked about here, create jobs. we have cooperation from the republicans, we can treat a lot of jobs. let's just think about this. all the infrastructure have

stopped us from doing it. i hope they do not do it again. teachers, firefighters, police officers. we had a piece of legislation on the floor that said these many people, public employees that have been laid off, bring the back end we have the surtax of people making more than $1 million year would have to pay a surtax of 0.3 of 1%. people are making more than a million dollars a year, the vast majority of them are happy. job creation is one of the easiest things we can do. we need help from the republicans. >> how do you plan to reset your relationship with senator halloran now that the campaign is over? do you think you can work together?

>> we have been friends for 25 years. a difficult election i had in 1998. he was a champion. he was so helpful. i have affection for dean heller. we will be able to work together. i worked with john ensign. i think that you and everyone has to acknowledge what good friends where and how well we work together. i have no problem with that. >> [inaudible] can you get beyond that? >> as far as big blow ups, that is a minor in my life. thanks, everybody. >> do think that climate change legislation can make it through the senate and where is that on your priority list? >> for me having been the

chairman of the environment committee twice, i have spent my -- a lot of my career greeting voters in nevada and doing things that i think are environmentally important. climate change is an extremely important issue for me and i hope we can address it reasonably as we have seen with the storms that are overwhelming our country in the world. we need to do something about it. thank you.

>> good afternoon. let me start by offering my congratulations to president obama and the first lady and the vice-president. like many americans i was hoping that this election would turn out differently. there rummy and paul ryan are good man and the leaders. i want to wish them and their families well. the american people have spoken. they have reelected president obama and they have reelected the putt -- a republican majority. there is a mandate in yesterday's results and a mandate to find a way to work together on the solutions to the challenges will face as a nation. a message today is not one of

confrontation but one of conviction. in the weeks and months ahead we face a series of tremendous challenges and opportunities. there is the fiscal cliff. a combination of spending cuts and tax increases mandated by law. congress will be asked to raise the nation's debt ceiling. legislation will be needed to keep the government running as a continuing resolution under which we are currently operating. amid this short-term hurdles we face the greatest challenge of all. a massive debt that is smothering growth and exceeding the entire size of our economy. there will be many who will say that we should confront the first of these challenges by letting the tax rates expire and pushing the sequester off to some other day. there would have disengage in the same short-term temporary

policies that has helped put us into this fix. let's have more of the same. let's agree to a drive our economy off part of the fiscal cliff instead of driving it off the whole fiscal cliff and we will call it a day. that might get us out of town but it will not get us out of the problem. and it will hurt our economy. we cannot keep going on like that. we cannot keep setting the bar that low. it is time that we raise the bar. the american people did not give us a mandate to do the simple thing. they elected us to lead. they gave us a mandate to work together to do the best for our country. we know what the best thing is, an agreement that sends the signal to our economy and to the world that after years of hunting on the fiscal challenges we face, -- punting the fiscal challenges we face, 2013 is going to be different. if we want to lift the cloud of

debt hanging over our country. we will not solve the problem overnight. we certainly will not do it in a lame-duck session of conference -- congress. it will not be solved by taking a plunge of the fiscal cliff. what we can do is avoid it in a manner that serves as a catalyst for major solutions enacted in 2013 to begin to solve the problem. republican majority stands ready to work with the president to do what is best for our country. that is exactly what i told the president earlier today. that is the will of the people and we will answer to them. doing what is best means considering the impact of the policies that will be set in motion. princeton young says going over

part of the fiscal " read a cliff -- fiscal cliff would cost more than 70,000 jobs. it also confirmed many of those hit with a rate increase will be small business owners, the very people who both parties acknowledge are that he to private sector job creation. there is an alternative. it involves making real changes to the financial changes and reforming our tax code to curb special interest loopholes and deductions. by working together in creating a cleaner tax code, we can get our country is stronger, healthier economy. that means more revenue, which is what the president wants. because the american people expect us to find common ground, we are willing to except additional revenue by way of tax reform. there is a model that supports economic growth.

in 1986, with a democrat house, and a republican president named ronald reagan. in 1986, there were skeptics who doubted the economic benefits of tax reform. those skeptics were wrong. a stanford economist said the 1986 reform is the sort of an unsung hero of the good economic times we have had for a long time. the time has come again to revamp the tax code. and if we do, he argues, there will be a response and revenue will come in. but american people also expect us to solve the problem. for that reason, in order to garner republican support for new revenues, the president must reduce spending and shore up entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt. if we're not seeking to impose our will on the president, we are asking him to make good god in his balanced approach. he has called for a balanced

approach to the deficit, increase revenues. that is not balanced if it means higher taxes on small businesses that are the key to getting our country moving again in keeping a moving. a balanced approach is not balanced by increasing the amount of money coming into the coffers of government without cutting spending and addressing entitlements of the same time. a balanced approach is not balance if it is done in the washington way of raising taxes now and ultimately failing to cut spending in the future. a balanced approach is not balanced if it means cutting the defense instead of making the common-sense cuts that are needed. real economic growth to elude us in the first term of the president. without it, we cannot solve our debt problem. for the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement, we're willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions.

what matters is where the increase comes from and what type of reform comes with it. does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the american people earning? or does it come as a byproduct of growing our economy, energized by a simpler tax code, with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all? at the same time, are we supporting growth by taking concrete steps to put our country's entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing or are we going to continue to avoid a matter, the root of the problem? shoring up entitlements and reforming the tax code, closing deductions, and moving to a simpler system will bring jobs home and result in a stronger, healthier economy. history teaches that this is

the right path to take. tax reform, done in the manner i have described, will result in additional revenue that the president wants. it will support economic growth, which means more revenue generated for the treasury. it will improve the efficiency of the tax system, which means additional revenue as well. we're closer than many think to the critical mass that is needed to get tax reform done. the president and i talked about it did during the summer of 2011. they offered proposals in the so-called super committee that provided revenue via tax reform. to get economy moving again is the only way we will be able to balance the federal budget. the question we should be asking, is not which taxes should i race to get more revenue, but which reforms can

we agree on that will get our economy moving again? there are two ipads we can take to get to revenue. -- two paths we can take to get revenue. feeding the growth of our economy through a better tax code will. the president has signaled a willingness to do tax reform with lower rates. republicans have signaled a willingness to accept new revenue, if it comes from growth and reform. let's start the discussion there. i am not suggesting we compromise our principles but i am suggesting we commit ourselves to creating an atmosphere where we can seek common ground and seized it. if we cannot find common ground, we will continue to operate on a tax code on a year-to-year basis. emmys will continue to extend major programs for a month at a time. it means we will face expiration of the government's borrowing authority.

and we will be on constant downgrade watch from our creditors. in the new testament, there is a parable. one man who built his house on sand and the other who built his house on rock. the foundation of the economy, the rock of our economy, has always been small businesses and the private sector. i ran one of the small businesses and i can tell you raising a small business tax means they do not grow. in small businesses do not grow, our economy does not grow. if our economy does not grow, we do not have a prayer of digging our country out of a hole that we call our national debt. this is like going over part of the fiscal cliff is no solution at all. instead of building a house on sand, let's bill that on iraq. instead of raising small business taxes, -- let's built in on a rock. instead of raising small- business taxes, let's plan for

a serious process, focused on substance, not on theatrics. it will require weeks of work, rather than a week and a photo ops. it will not happen around the campfire or in a secret room of some air force base, over 18 holes of golf. this will take time. if we are striving for a solution, i am confident we can get there. mr. president, this is your moment. we are ready to be led. not as democrats or republicans that as americans. we want you to leave, not as a liberal or conservative, but as president of the united states. we want you to succeed. lead to challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has deluded us. let's rise above the the function and do the right thing together for our country. thank you.

>> could you clarify on tax reform? [inaudible] x tomorrow, bob cusack discuss the election. and what is next for congress with scott wilson. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i need some help over year. >> he just rolled himself out. he he -- at some point h

could stop breathing. >> we will do cpr. >> where is sergeant robert gates today? we followed him after this plane ride for many months and he ended up entering himself into an innovative program at walter reed for the end of using acupuncture, using meditation, using other techniques to wean him off all the drugs he was done. and through this program, he was able to walk out of walter reed on his own 2 feet. i commend the military for two things, for one, for allowing us to tell the story with a good and bad but for recognizing this

problem. by recognizing there is this problem of medication and they are looking for outside the box ideas on how to fix it. that is the whole basis of the film, really. the metaphor of the fire. the status quo is not working and we need to start looking for outside the box ideas. >> more with the producer and director. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on "q&a." >> the spam programming is good because they tried to cover both sides of the issues and the moderators do a good job at staying detached. and not getting into offering their own opinions but saying, what is your opinion? their comrades about covering a lot of the different the house and the senate and other public affairs centers in d.c. that i

would not normally be exposed to. >> c-span, treated by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> president obama won reelection with 303 electoral votes with florida's 29 still undetermined and over 50% of the popular vote. the national journal hosted several panel discussions breaking down the road to results and looking at the implications for national politics and the congressional agenda. >> it turned out not to be as long night as people expected and we're going to talk about that today and why and look forward to how the president to make go forward from this victory which think is safe to say it was quicker and bigger than many people expected.

would you like to tell us how this happened and -- why this happened and how? >> it was bigger than we expected. he really swept the battleground states. the only states that he lost that he had won in 2008, was north carolina which he had won by 14,000 votes in 2008. it was considered a fluke. what that tells us is that the set of assumptions that the obama campaign was operating on was correct. and a set of assumptions that the romney campaign was operating on was not. it's sort of make sense in a way sense obama's theory about the campaign turned out to be correct and the battleground states fell his way. >> of north carolina was the only that -- battleground state.

>> india was not even contested this time. north carolina was the only one. >> florida is still out. this year turned out to be irrelevant as opposed to other years. what did the republicans miss when they were looking at this electric? >> bemis anybody, practically anybody who was brown or black. bemis practically anybody who believes that immigration is an issue that needs to be tackled. you had a case here where the republican party right now is stampeding toward irrelevance. if they do not catch up with everything in the national journal, there is changing demographics. you cannot have a ruling coalition that is virtually all white. you had president obama

yesterday put together this new ascendant coalition, put it back together from 2008 and enough of the democratic coalition so you have this combination of hispanics, more than 70% of hispanics, young voters, people who both want to twice as a democrat. they're likely to remain a dealt crack -- democrat. republicans, what they're missing is the idea of trying to expand their percentage of a shrinking electorate. like it or not, this is becoming a majority minority nation and the republican party, this is the last time republicans will have a chance at winning the presidency with this kind of electoral strategy. >> let's talk about why this

happened. some of it was issues, some of it was the candidate. how did mitt romney try or not try to reach out to new people and expand the coalition? >> when i was talking earlier about the fundamental assumptions underlying the campaign, from the's campaign believed -- romney's campaign believes the economy was basically going to be the single biggest reason that would turn voters away from the president. there was an attack ad and that message, they could reach women and hispanics and that assertion on its face seems like a pretty reasonable assertion. we knew no present have been reelected since world war ii

with unemployment so high. obama changed the rule. he said he realized that unemployment was where it is but he will change the nature of the electorate. >> he is the first incumbent president since and jackson to be reelected with fewer votes than he got the first time. he will win with low 300 electoral votes. that is hardly a landslide. it is his mandate? -- what is his mandate? he did say, "elect me because that other guy is really scummy." he is overseeing a polarized electorate. we are a very clean the electorate. in walks president obama who now has to -- now has a second

chance to fill the promises of his first election, which were to forge a consensus across the aisle to solve the big problems in this country. the election was too much about the small things. >> a stark reminder of the present cost challenge going forward. he won independence in 2008 but he lost them last night. he got out democrats.

the center of this country preferred romney. >> the center of the country is tired of the status quo and voted for the status quo. we have the same ruling structure. >> mitt romney did not present a tempting alternative, as beth put it in one of her stories. one place that will start is the republican primaries. that was an interesting process this year with interesting people running. it pushed mitt romney into places he did not want to go to. what can republicans do about that? >> romney saw he could get to his right of his rivals who are

more conservative or immigration. he used that issue some would say to excess see himself as the most conservative person in the race. >> severely conservative. >> he finds himself running with a gap of hispanic voters that is not sustainable and he cannot recover from that. >> is going to be a civil war starting this morning in the republican party. it will be a blast to cover. we'll have a contest between the priest and mathematicians in the republican party.

the priest think there is no compromise and that we have to preserve our core american values and not compromise on the debt. cut spending and did not balance the budget by raising taxes. that is the priest. then there is the mathematician. "texas b a swing states. -- will be a swing state." people like chris christie. the mathematicians solid he reached across party lines and had a voice and that maybe he is a chance to become the nominee. or chris christie could be an independent candidate.

and helps block one of these parties. that will happen in a couple of cycles -- that will happen if the democrats and republicans do not get their acts together. >> do some pilaf and start compromising -- do some people off and start compromising? or is their party discipline we have seen in the past few years? the president had a speech last night that he would get to, ground on immigration. what do you think the prospects are? guest: you covered jeb bush in florida. >> he has been a leading mathematician. he said the republican party needs to embrace immigration reform, not just for political reasons but for economic reasons. there is common ground when it

comes to immigration on the one aspect of immigration reform that deals with high skilled workers. we need to make sure the brightest who come here to get educated are staying here. because of the other issues involving immigration, border security, folks not highly skilled, that muddies the water. perhaps this election will be the frying pan on the head of the republican party. >> there was talk about romney's change in tone. talk about this message versus substance debate they will probably have to have. should they just be nicer to hispanics? >> the public is more informed

than it ever has been because of the internet. we are not getting the job done here in washington. the same is true for the democrats. i was struck by the president's speech. he's never followed up on the 2008 speech. he was not able to fill those lofty promises. he was very powerful. humility. he said, "i heard you" and "you may meet a better president."

that was a past tense. his task is to show he can walk the walk. can he reach out to democrats in this environment? can he get up to capitol hill and do the hard work of governing and roll up his sleeves and humble himself in his office by spending time on capitol hill? can he live up to his words? a working relationship. >> he did say he wanted to talk to mitt romney about the future of the country. >> if he wants a third term through hillary clinton or joe biden, he darn well better do it. they had better grab the olive

branch. republicans are tired of this. >> a big theme was the so- called war on women. and the size issues like abortion and contraception -- emphasize issues like abortion and contraception. these issues usually -- you know what i'm talking about. they had a lot of help from republicans. if anybody knows missouri or indiana. what was going on on the campaign trail was extraordinary. you could see in the exit polling that the republican party is out of step with the majority of americans.

i have some numbers here for you. 2/3 of the people said abortions to be legal most are all the time. these are issues -- on the issues involving women, what needs to happen for republicans to make some inroads here? >> well, what i was going to say was that the very aggressive ads run by the obama campaign, planned parenthood on abortion -- the reason i think they were effective is that helped to paint that picture of mitt romney as a guy you could not

live with. people were disappointed in obama. there were open to an alternative. under the scenario of those ads, abortion would be illegal in all cases. birth control would be hidden in the back of the warehouse. they painted a doomsday scenario for women which in some cases really stretched the truth. we can see that it seems to have worked. >> i agree with all of that. the president was very effective on the people in my career targeting their constituencies, bourbon women -- suburban women, hispanics.

very effective at micro targeting. listen to speeches and watch him change the targets, change who he was micra targeting. watching it was very impressive. he lost the ability to speak to the nation as a unifier. he could have a mandate to lead. it was a great way to build a coalition and he is now the president again. he doesn't have a mandate. he has a chance. he has to pull out of the micro targeting, as effective as it might be. i got in the cab this morning to come here. "would you mind turning on any new station?

i don't care which.' he he said no. he will not listen to the radio today. whooesn't like the guy became the president of the united states. it is not good for the country or for president obama. he has to recapture what he had in 2008 with his rhetoric and his action to speak to people. >> could he have won any other

way? >> probably not. unemployment is about 8%. now when you aren't african- american in a country that still has racial issues. he ran the way he thought he had to do to win. >> it is reminiscent of 2004. we had a similar situation with an incumbent. he went after john kerry's war record. >> what did president bush do? he claimed a mandate he didn't have on iraq and it sank his presidency. sorry to interrupt. >> is there a number to sum up the election? 47%. a moment to sum up the obama campaign, it was the first debate.

these were self-inflicted wounds that these candidates may to themselves. much influence do you think they had? >> i think the 47% was a pretty big deal. democrats have been laying the groundwork with these attack ads portraying romney as the guy who cared about the middle class and was interested in protecting rich people like himself. romney sort of betrayed himself. the democrats seized on that. it happened at a time when romney's candidacy was floundering. the first debate, he was able to put that 47% behind him, but the damage was done.

>> he put that behind him in his first debate. he spent all that money and allow time characterizing romney as an uncaring monster. all the sudden he looked reasonable. he looked like somebody who could be president.

the president did not bring his a game. part of it was, romney had a huge advantage going into it. any challenger in the first debate wins by just showing up. it was a hyper advantage for romney. all romney had to do was not look that evil. >> he had been to about 20 debates. >> the debate brought the election back to where it had been. it was really close. neither one would get a mandate. >> the democratic convention was a pretty interesting moment. democrats were not as dispirited. the debate you raised that impression, but not entirely. the republicans had a 1950's view of america. nuclear family. that is how their nominees have been.

democrats come from dysfunctional homes and triumph over nontraditional circumstances. it is a different world. i think it led to some under estimation of the democratic coalition. >> the underlying assumption of romney's campaign. they cannot turn out what they did in 2008. young people cannot turn out like they did in 2008 when somebody cannot find a job, and yet they did. that knocked the republicans on their heels. hispanics and young people increased their share. >> there are a lot of democrats

could take the same view you do, that republicans are hurting themselves by putting in candidates that did not represent the 1950's style nuclear family. there are a lot of people that live in a 19th of the's style nuclear family or want to. i don't think republican candidates have done poorly because they were not blue- collar enough. their policies and messages were not connecting. >> it is what you convey in terms of people. we are going to move to questions in a moment. let's talk about the money that was spent on the campaign. why don't we go to the audience? who has a question?

>> hi. i was looking at the tracking poll. after the first campaign, romney was ahead for a it little bit. around halloween, the sandy news started to kick in. president obama went ahead by point or less. how do you see sandy play in? >> it robbed the challenger. it brought them for 3 or four days, six news cycles. the core issue was the economy. thatsn't able to get

message through for a few days. to some voters, it probably reminded some voters that this guy is reaching across party lines and reaching to the governor from new jersey. they're sitting in for the first time. i think it did help obama by freezing things for a few days and giving him that commander in chief aura. >> there is an important role that the federal government plays. romney and paul ryan talked about the government needs to get out of the way.

>> romney specifically said he would cut fema. >> the last thing people want when catastrophe strikes is the government to get out of the way. >> some people remember obama came in in the middle of a crisis and he was cool headed. they were reminded that this guy doesn't react as much emotionally as we like to see, when a crisis hits, he is the guy we would like to see. >> over here to your stage right. hi. what will be president obama's 3 legacy initiatives? what luck willie have getting those through to the congress? >> i'll take two. an interview with "the des moines register." he talked about immigration. he can get that done if he plays his cards right. he thought he could get a grand bargain. that will be harder to have a balanced approach to fighting

what is -- that is two. >> i would think a third legacy would be a health-care. republicans have been saying all these things are going to happen under obamacare. now was on the evidence starts to come and. >> he always will be the first african-american president. relationships reproved is something we will look back on. >> he wants to reform the tax code. is another area where there could be more than a fleeting impact. has he learned horrible or negotiation -- has he learned hardball or negotiation? >> bob carr. you talk about extending the olive branch. to whom should he hand it? >> speaker boehner and eric cantor are not going anywhere.

interesting to see how they danced together. will they be leading the party or the extreme right of the party? that will be something to watch. >> there have been some chastening experience is in the senate watch. that is an open question about whether there will be room for compromise. >> obama should open up to every wing in the party to show he is trying.

>> one thing obama learned with sandy is how far perks can go. maybe we'll see more republicans going to the white house. >> small gestures matter. i believe mandates are earned after election day. heat reappointed mike mansfield to ambassador in japan. it was a small thing but it showed the democrats that maybe this is a guy we should listen to. it wouldn't hurt him. a matter who won, she would recommend they get into his limousine and get back to the capital and show some humility and grace. that was good advice for mitt romney and 4 president obama. question right here. >> thank you. one of the constituencies the obama has put on the back shelf is a business. he made a promise that he would double exports within the last four years, but never reached out to industry, other than the auto industry and some of the larger manufacturers. how do you see the next four years? do you think he will be the manufacturing industry to help accomplish what he wants to? >> yes. yesterday he said, "i heard you. i will be a better president."

>> cornell woolridge. i was curious with the expansion of the latino votes. bush made inroads along religious lines with the catholic community. i'm wondering what is going to be the next way to make inroads to that community. >> i think that is the frying pan hitting the republican party on the head today, the latino vote. it wasn't as if the right thing was not on the wall. -- it was not as if the writing was not on the wall. this is the fastest growing share of the electorate. >> george bush reached out to the hispanic community. could they teach the republican leadership now? >> that is a two-part effort. is in a tone of our policy?

i think it has to be both. marco rubio -- jeb bush was his mentor. he was telling the party line on immigration. he didn't make illegal immigrants sound like the enemy. someone asked about common ground. another area we will see action

is a dream act type legislation where marco rubio has put something fourth and i thing that might be an area where public opinion polls show most people agree, then people brought here should be able to

stay. >> we saw with jeb bush and george bush that hispanics share a lot of values with the republican party. if he did not push them away, you could grow the vote. if mitt romney, all he did was have the same percentage of the hispanic vote as george bush did, he would be president right now. they blew it. look at what the bushes did. a lot of that was showing you are willing to listen. >> the bushes had major substance behind their tone. comprehensive

immigration reform for people that were already here. that will be the price of admission for the republican party. there has been a lot of movement towards trying to prove the border has been closed, it is not as bad as the problem as it has been. we're not going to have this problem in the future. that is the prerequisite a lot of republicans have put on it. we will see if it is good enough. or drive them to compromise. other questions?

>> thinking about the progressive coalition that led the win for obama. obama does not act like a true progressive. what is going to owe them or give them? presumably they will expect something.

the payback on the standpoint of the progressive community. some of that is at odds with what we're talking about as an olive branch to the republicans. what is going on from obama pragmatically? do they have enough power to extract what they wanted? >> put yourself in barack obama's shoes. now you're thinking about your legacy.

you also are thinking about what is good for the country. most folks elected to office want to do the right thing. "i got to do something big and be remembered for something." maybe he is not thinking about what he owes the progressive. >> he has already given them a lot. donna stone tel -- don't ask, don't tell, dream act. >> a safety net for the left as well as the right. >> supreme court justices. >> that is a good point. that was a big thing. >> any thoughts on climate change?

that was the issue that was not discussed during the campaign. politics has not changed. do you see any room for compromise? >> that is another way the storm may have played a role, if only to move the needle a little bit. mayor bloomberg can not to endorse the president largely on that issue. the freak storm ravaged new york city. when storms like that happen, it does help consensus. i do not think that will be at the top of the agenda. immigration reform is probably more of the momentum behind

that. >> there are two issues that have changed dramatically, 180 degrees. one is gay rights. this country went to a much broader acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage. just stunning. part is a democratic shift. the other is a climate change. there was a big movement among evangelicals to save the lord's earth, to save the greatest gift we were given. it made a lot of sense with the far right's agenda. it has been turned into the exact opposite. climate change is happening and it is partially caused by human kind.

that is happening just a few years after both parties in a pretty wide degree that something had to be done for different reasons. stunning. >> somebody was compiling the best tweets of the campaign. "i agree with the scientific consensus on global warming. call me crazy." that's where things were. there could be changes to the party. >> it may take the economy to get more on track before the resistance to that eases up. >> true. any other questions? >> good morning.

the effect of redistricting and the relationship of congress and the president's. i live in maryland. seven of the eight winners -- maryland is now seven to one democrat to republican. if winners will have 60% of the vote, i see no reason to compromise. how do you see this may be changing or having to change in the future? i see no need to compromise because my constituents are voting me in.

>> it is the most pernicious problem with our democracy right now. there are too many congressmen and women who all they have to worry about is not being primaried. they're protecting their left or right flank. they have no incentive to compromise. that is a big problem. >> we may see some kind backlash against the tea party. publicans had high hopes about taking back the senate. at some of the losses like dick lugar in indiana and in delaware -- these were tea party-inspired victories that some might argue cost republicans the potential to control the senate. maybe there will be a reaction to that.

>> the senate is tied up by the filibuster and how. the house writes the checks. it is dominated by people that care too much about appeasing the far right or the fiat -- far left. >> i think a lot will depend on john boehner and legacy he wants to leave and what kind of freedom he wants to give. there was such an enforcement of party discipline. that was the policy.

they wanted to make obama a one- term president. if they want to win the presidency in 2016 -- >> they have to listen to the tea party or the far left if they want to win their seat. they want to hang onto their jobs. wearing about my job. -- just worrying about my job. that is the attitude they take. >> i'm seeing it wrapup sign in front of me. it is the beginning of something new. we just elected a president. thank you very much for coming. >> thank you, everybody.

>> thank you, jill, ron, and beth. we are fully committed this morning. we do have a coat check outside. this will be quite a lengthy program. there are a few more empty seats in the front. panel number two will talk about the impact of last night's election for the issues

that congress has to tackle in the near and more long term approach for the issues. leading the discussion is the editor in chief for "national journal" hot line. in the middle is the congressional correspondent for "national journal." thank you for joining us this morning.

>> hi. i'm from the hotline. i have not slept a wink. scott has done slept at all. everybody get up and stretch. thank you very much. i wanted to make sure you had a chance to stretch. this has been a fund election to watch. a president gen it is only as good as a congress that will or will not work with him. saw a pretty tumultuous environment.

democrats picked up three republican-held seats. joe donnelly in indiana. in massachusetts, elizabeth warren beat scott brown. republicans picked up the nebraska seat.

deb fischer will be the new senator. there are some races that yet to be called. give us your lay of the land. what happened last night? >> i was driving on last night on rock creek parkway and listening to c-span because i could not turn off the story. a woman called in from missouri. she went on about how awful it was with the increasing number of abortions and we need to go back to biblical values. that is what we needed in the

country. the moderator asked about todd akin's defeat. "i voted for claire mccaskill." the big picture for me, will affect my life is that obamacare has to digest the latest in a succession of bullets. obamacare now gets an opportunity to work. if it works, universal health care can be something in this country down the road. a lot of details attached to be solved. states have to decide if they are going to do exchanges. you don't have a republican president or senate. that was the one big possibly historic change that we saw. >> it is easy to give your head around what happened in the senate. it is harder to keep your head around the races in the house. take us through with the house stands. >> democrats having picked up one seat, but that might have changed. a lot of races are still out, including some on the west coast. there were almost two elections going on last night. republicans are running rampant in the south. providing any larger foundation for the majority they are going to have. in the northeast, you had the opposite going on. democratic incumbents in rhode island and massachusetts with extraordinary liabilities. you saw similar things happen on the west coast. both parties were further out in different parts of the country geographically and ideologically. >> this also happened farther down the ballot. the arkansas state has gone republican.

the state house has go republican, which will leave democrats without a single legislative chamber in the old confederacy for the first time since the civil war. there is that migration. it happened in the senate where you have the incumbents who lost, scott brown, in a state that obama won with 60%. >> you talk about claire mccaskill and talk about joe donnelly in indiana. since i was a young reporter, it is a big important part of the game. if he took -- if you went back to last january, will rule the coming election, everybody was said super pacs, money, money, money. the republicans had a few losers and it showed on election night. that was a big lesson i took away. how pros can change the game. >> look at north dakota. montana -- the republicans were not happy with the race until the last month of the election. even in arizona, there was a recruiting class of one. democrats were not going to touch the state. republican spend $4 million or $5 million

to save flake. >> there is no reason why they should be elected democrat. talk to grover norquist. this is what he says. i have to find out what is in the water. >> you do a pretty good grover impression. >> there were some democrats that survived that should not have. >> one candidate that to buy that is in georgia, the beneficiary of an inept republican challenger. he probably ran the best tv campaign. the seven democrats have to run the gamut appealing to the black liberal base in their district while appealing to the median voter that is white and conservative. he ran these ads you have to watch that appeal to inner-city black liberals and rural whites

and a fascinating way. he outperform the republican, where mitt romney won 50%. mcintyre is deadlock with his challenger. he ran a stellar campaign. mcintyre could run for chairman of the republican party committee. >> the advertisement was with john barrow features him with his gun and that nobody would take it away from him. his grandfather used his gun to stop a lynching. fascinating way to thread that needle. one of the better ads of the year. we have scorecards for every major group on hot line. you can see how they did. the chamber of commerce and the

nra didn't do all that great. they endorsed two democrats. >> chambers spent $4 million trying to defeat tim kaine of virginia. >> north of $3 million in the hawaii race. the race problem wasn't a race to begin with. let's go back to obamacare. what was at stake? >> aside from obamacare, you have three supreme court justices that could come up. ginsburg is 79. kennedy, and scalia are 76. bryer is 74.

that could possibly give obama two more supreme court picks. i think the senate is going to be slightly more liberal, the more radical, a lot more female. my sister once read a vote by a harvard professor called "it woman's way of knowing" and to

suggest the women have a different way of negotiating than men. with 23 women in the senate, things may get done. you also have a lot of energy of new senators. there is a big scramble up there. my overriding role is that if you are thinking about the fiscal cliff right now, what you are in the white house or

you are the mitch mcconnell, you have to consider that voters in exit polls are saying that they're willing to take higher taxes, but they think government is too big. it is there. it is within reach. but john boehner has to be given some kind of cover so he can bring 140 republican votes with him. it will be very difficult to do a. obama will have to immediately

decide whether he wants to go off the cliff with the bush tax cuts, or if he will try to get something big and mushy like tax reform. it will have to be massaged in such a way through increased revenue and more money flow and fees. anything to avoid that horrible thing called a tax increase. >> we heard the last panel talked a little bit about redistricting and the impact on partisanship, especially in the house. the senate has gotten more ideological itself after last night. the democrats coming in include this gamut from elizabeth warren to heidi high camp. republicans, there are not many

of them coming in, but jeff flake is on the oversight. >> jeff blake is a pro vote when it comes to climate change. elizabeth warren was a republican candidates through the clinton years. the system -- director of the office of federal planning at the trade commission. this is one person attorney- general of the department of justice. domestic policy adviser to george w. bush. i jumped professor of law at the university of texas. his father fought against the batista regime. i'm talking about that great tea party rebel, ted cruz. you cannot look at this and say, this is what is going to happen. margo rubio, ted cruz, they will have that entry if they want to take it on reform. there is a lot more chance, i

think, for progress than we think looking back in the last two years and seeing what happens. >> the senate did get a little more ideological purity and this bogeyman that makes the house so ideological, that did happen. what is the impact on the house? >> i had to look to see if we were seeing an anti-incumbent year and a lot of people said no. a lot of members lost in primaries this year, but a lot

of them were up against other numbers in the primaries. the numbers were even higher this cycle than it was in 2010. in 2010 it was a double what it was in 2008. the pressure from the ranks is building each cycle. we're going to see a continuation of what we saw with the freshman class in 2010. this freshman costs will be about the same or larger, by the way. you have these guys coming in in places like florida. and cliff stearns was leading the solyndra investigation. but he could not make it happen. it was not enough for his district. and i have a large animal that

wants to see term limits and so on and so forth coming in. on the other side, you have a longtime democratic members retiring and been replaced. >> and then you have the fiscal votes. john boehner manage to round up republicans on the oversight of the caucus and joined with nancy pelosi and the government kept running. they put together the budget control act. they put together this bipartisan coalition. nobody wanted to take credit for it because it was embarrassing to the republicans to go back home and say, in the end, we are running the government in a bipartisan way. yes, there will be ideological hotheads.

but even among those freshmen, when they start feeling the pressure about the fiscal cliff approaching from the big factories, is that what they really want? i think it will get it done. >> it seems to me, there are two factions of the republican party battling for some kind of super mess. and it is the guys in the beltway, john boehner, mitch mcconnell, the leaders reverses the guys outside the beltway. the guys in iowa, rick santorum, the folks in south carolina who gave the primary to newt gingrich. beyond that, i feel -- ever since george of the bush's second term, there has been an anti-establishment reaction within the republican party. they were embarrassed and angry with the bush administration.

conservatism turned out to not be what they wanted. they wanted small government conservatism. i think everybody loves to many people into the tea party caldron. but you get the types that are determined to come here and do something against leadership. in ohio, he mentioned he likes the trappings of office, if you will. he mentioned to me, how much leadership can you exert? how much control can you exert over your own conference? given the freshmen. and he said to be, it is not the freshmen. he said it is some of the older members. he did not say who. i would have preferred if he did. that is those who are trying to

have perfect scores on these ratings. they are the problem. because anti-leadership is good for them. and it is not necessarily good for the institution as a whole. i think we will see now that mitt romney has lost, we will see this heat up, the insiders versus the outsiders. the activist class is going to scream at the other class for having nominated the guy who lost. >> they're the ones who survived, in part, because the conservative side is so splintered. conservatives projected, way farther than they should. you can see someone like chris christie winning the nomination. he is the only moderate who? the sense to those voters in michigan and iowa and illinois.

or you could see somebody like marco rubio doing it richard nixon and coming from the angry side and seeking roots into the more moderate base. >> we sit here and talk about how the republican party needs to moderate. those same discussions are not happening in iowa. in fact, it is the opposite. they are saying, we have nominated two moderates in a row. look where it has gotten us, no where. i think it will start to see people like rand paul. and certainly, bobby jindal from louisiana. they will make a trip or two and test the waters. this new class, how are they going to react to being led?

are they going to be able to be led? >> i think no one knows. that is kind of the point. in comparison to the enormous freshman class that we just had and everyone makes so much noise about, it is really instructive. considering the number of open seats that were left open for retirement and redistricting and so on and so forth, incumbents who lost, there will be more members of the house with fewer than two terms of

experience in the 113th congress than any time in the last two decades in 1992 with redistricting and the banking scandal. no one really knows. you have seen vader and cantor and other republican leaders fanned out across the country in the last few months. and even campaigning for incoming members who were in cakewalks in north carolina and california and other parts of the country that did not need a fund raiser from the house majority leader. but you saw him putting in face time and getting to know these guys on the trail. possibly in hopes of being able to work with them when they get here. >> or perhaps in securing their vote with republican leader

elections, which happen to be right around the corner. one thing that they have got overlooked in the broad scheme of the house, would talk about redistricting as evil. but there are some states that have taken a different approach. the number one state that has taken a different approach is california. california has gone to a bipartisan redistricting commission. they drew lines without input of the state legislature, allegedly without the input of the state legislature. over the last decade, 53 seats in california, five house election cycles. 265 elections in california and only one seat out of those 265 times changed hands. now, though, we have seen -- as they are still counting a lot of

districts, but we have seen eight or nine competitive seats with a very interesting stories. tell us about it. >> on both sides of the aisle, too. by the time we left the office this morning, there were 13 votes. there were about 200 separate in congressman dan lundgren from his democratic challenger in sacramento. and mcnerney had a tough race, too. both parties made a real effort to try to invest time and resources with consultants and apparatus that they have never had to pay attention to before because there was no point in going there. it is going to be interesting to see what happens. given how many seats hang in a very narrow balance right now, what we end up thinking about the final results of this election depends on a few hundred votes each in a half- dozen votes, which could tip an

election either way. and you would never cease and the like this independently with redistricting. a two seats open up in the fast-growing hispanic communities in the central valley. >> it is interesting to watch these two party committees. these are data points they have not had for years on end. it has been an interesting process to watch. one more question that will go to question and answers. if anyone has a question, there are folks around a room with microphones. flight one down and will be able to grab them. at the beginning of the cycle, 23 democratic seats, only 10 republican seats up in the senate. it seemed republicans were all but guaranteed to net the four seats necessary to take back

the majority now we know that did not happen, thanks to luck and fortune and really dumb statements at debates and on camera. there's this other thing coming, and it is called 2014. not to jump too far ahead, but there will be a lot more, will there? >> yes, and democrats will be defending more seeds. it be 20 democrats. of the 15 republican seats, there's only one that is a prime takeover, and that is dubious, really. it is susie collins in maine. i think she could win a pre- election pretty easily unless maine republicans do something stupid and try to take her on in a primary. then you have frank leinberger, who will be 90 years old.

you have jay rockefeller of west virginia, who is going to be 77. you have carl levin. you have mary lender prior in arkansas. you have kagan in north carolina you have a seat that can be contested. to me, what that argument says is the senate, i don't think is going to be the obstacle to the grand bargain. it is the 140 republican votes that speaker boehner will have to get together. and actually, how does barack obama help boehner? >> and another seat in 2014, mitch mcconnell's seat. whether in the primary or the general election, he is really concerned. he has been raising some the like a million dollars a quarter in the off-year for the last year-and-a-half or so.

he hired rand paul's campaign manager. he is seriously preparing for the contest. >> he made the comment to our colleague, major garrett, that our top priority is stopping barack obama. and they did it, and congressional approval rating went on to historic lows. talking about statements being made when television cameras are on, one thing about this polarization that we have where all we do is we only watch msnbc or with only watch fox and we only talk to people that we want to hear from, you begin to

adopt this alternative reality. everybody is talking to you about the fact that when women are raped they cannot really get pregnant and you tend to believe it. and the rest of the world says, are you out of your mind? eventually, that will become a risk for democrats as well. >> and by the way, there is a kentucky democrat who is suddenly out of the job. ben chandler lost his seat last night. >> since you just brought it up, what is the murdock situation? is it that republicans should be more tolerant of women's issues? and even running at the end of the campaign ran an ad about women's choice. what is the message there? is it about tolerance? will they lose the women's vote, or is that an anomaly? >> in talking about what the republican party should do, it brings up an ironic difference between the two parties. on the one hand, democrats have an iron fist on who is able to

get through their primaries. we saw this in maine earlier this year. a woman was running and she wanted olympia snowe's seat. it was hard for her to raise money. across the country, democrats have the ability to pick their candidate, because of money supply, because of simple party organization, and simply the fact that the democratic senatorial campaign committee is able to go in and not be the bad guy when they get involved in a race. on the other hand, you have the national republican senate committee, who because this activist class outside of d.c. cannot stand anything from inside the beltway and they have problems. they can do something here and

there. they can guide a campaign stop to direct money into a fund or something like that, but to control who will be the nominee, they can really do that to the extent that the democrats can. >> as you pointed out earlier, there is a wrinkle when you talk about outside the beltway and inside the beltway. you have these grass roots organizations in the hinterlands, but actually, they are playing hard ball inside the beltway. this was one of the more smart comments i have heard. this was senator lugar's

explanation to his constituents in indiana. he said, i sort of knew i was going to lose because after the races in 2010 i knew i was a likely target of the super pacs dedicated to defeating a least one republican as it purification exercise is to enhance their own power over again republican legislature. that goes to you should not vote for the candidates that you love by you sure can apply pressure to get inside the beltway organizations that are out there trying to boost their own clout in washington for their own personal purposes. that is one thing that republican leaders could do to try to improve this candidate

selection process. >> what did those types of groups, what role they play? but they played a role in trying to choose candidates, much like we just discussed. it seems like such a long time ago, the primaries. especially this morning. >> i think yesterday's seems like a long time ago. >> but in general, -- actually, one particularly instructive incident was the club for growth and a rather aggressive letter to the house republican leadership in march warning them off in getting involved in the member verses member primary between david schriber and dan quayle -- ben quayle in arizona. it's certainly got a lot of attention. the fact that these groups are not afraid to step in for no

particular reason is a large reason why we end up with candidates who are willing to say and do anything. >> and by the way, in that race, quayle was the leadership backed candidates and schwiekwer was the growth backed candidates and he ended up winning. >> the comment has been made on what will need to be the relationship between speaker gaynor and president obama on achieving a grand bargain. i wonder if you could comment on what role mitch mcconnell and senate republicans could play when mcconnell is up for reelection in 2014. what likely role will mr. mcconnell and his senate republicans play in achieving a so-called grand bargain? >> our colleague, major garrett, did some great political sleuthing a few weeks ago. he talked to some leadership

aides in the senate and identified a dozen or so republican senators that could be relied on to vote for some kind of revenue package. the fact you now how a couple more votes toward the magic 60

number on the democratic side will have a little bit -- well, scott brown was one of the republicans that was being counted on. my personal instinct is that the senate is doable. it is eric cantor -- you know who could play tremendous role is paul ryan. he is a champion of the conservative side of the party, but his voting record shows that he will vote for smart

compromises. he will moderate his views. and he is someone who could really sell a deal to the republican right. the question is, is this the first step that he was to take toward being the nominee, cutting a deal with obama? or does he want to be the champion of, no way, we will stick with the ryan budget to the last man? >>, speaking of all right for a second, the most famous republicans in the house -- speaking of paul reihan for a setting, the most famous republicans in the house, paul ryan did all right on site. but a couple of the others, michelle bachmann had close race. alan west looks like he is going to lose. some really close contest for some well-known candidates. >> we have seen this in a couple of cycles in a row with michelle bachmann. she is learning that acting the way she does is great for fund- raising, but it is also great for her opponents fundraising, too. patrick murphy is looking like a good bet to join congress next year. he is a 29-year-old who worked in his family's construction firm for a little while and raised god knows how many

millions of dollars from all across the country to just barely keep pace with the avalanche of tv ads that west put on the air. there is a benefit to being the tea party icon, but also a cost. also, going back to the question of what role the leaders will play in this, and even the earlier point about whether the members will allow themselves to be led, it is important to remember that congress will only hang around for three, maybe four days a week now. the people who are the freshmen and the folks like them that they are taking their cues from, they are not the party leaders.

they are friends from back home. they run into them in the bar or the diner. a friend of mine spent some time in rural florida and recently was one of the tea party infused freshman down there, mr. ross. he told him he does not feel pressure from boehner and cantor and whoever, but the guy he runs into a of the local restaurant. >> the pearly and strategy that won obama reelection, about part of it is putting the president in about a cross it, you did not have a president who went to georgia or texas or louisiana or montana and later helped bring in democrats, or soften up a little bit of this opposition, the constant pounding he has been taking for four years that have demonized him in a lot of the states. that is one week as he allowed coming in. at the end of his speech last night, i thought it was highly

significant that he went on to there is no red stains or blue states. if that is the way he governs, then it will be hard to go to georgia and texas and convince them that he means it. but that is the way he sinks the roots of health care. >> what did you learn last night in 30 seconds? >> it goes back to the party is sorted themselves into different parts of the country, sorting themselves further and further at ideologically from each other. and it is not just geography and ideology. is race also. if you look at the seats that republicans went after, the democratic seats that they still managed to go after, almost all of them were more than 80%

white, the populations. on the flip side, the majority of the republican held seat, the 40% on white or so were targeted by democrats. both sides were successful on the edges. more and more, the parties are sorting themselves further and further apart on so many different levels. >> what did you learn last night? gregg's i learned an amazing historical fact. this is the first time since jefferson, madison, and monroe that we have had three presidents elected to two terms in american history. i do not know exactly what it means, but there you go. >> i learned the democrats have a real problem coming up. we've heard a lot about how they will do with demographics, how they will deal with hispanics.

what democrats have, though, is a problem with the obama coalition. they got it out in 2008. they got it out in 2012. can they get it out in 2014, in 2016 with another presidential candidate? or is this coalition specific to this individual person who has such resonance within the democratic base? i will watch how the democrats try to absorb the obama campaign organization in the next one. that will be as critical as the republican outreach is to that coalition. thank you very much. i really appreciate your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] wrecks >> alex worked out the

ways and means committee of economic incisors. -- economic advisers. during bernstein-- jared burn stein is a senior fellow for joe biden. we should have separated you. >> today is the day for i have the progressive family. -- for the happy progressive

family. >> we need to start with the big question. we are in a position where the country has sent back a democratic president, and there are two seats in the senate. when you look at that new configuration and the incredible conglomeration of fiscal choices bearing down on us, what does that point towards. does this make a deal more or less likely? >> i think it makes it a little more likely. i do not mean it gets resolved by january 1. i saw the market's thinking -- tanking, which is an unfortunate thing. it is like they were expecting a

different outcome than the numbers suggest. there are supposed to be numbers. is the deal beginning to take shape? it does not have to pass during a lame-duck to avoid the recessionary contraction imbedded in the fiscal cliff, and we have talked about it has a fiscal slope. i do not think it will be recessionary. i am not sure about this, but it does seem to me that a newly reelected president gets more

than he or she wants than someone who has been toiling away with the kind of obstructionism we have been seeing. it is optimistic there will be announced in the room to orchestrate a deal that involves spending. we have 1.7 trillion dollars in cuts over the next 10 years that have been passed. >> after this election can you foresee a circumstance with a net increase in revenue? >> republicans have already made that overture during the super committee. it was not heralded much by the press, but they made an offer to increase revenues, and it was

not an accepted. we have been through administrations. the second term is ours. we have a lot of unexpected surprises that popped up. this government has been campaigning. now i think the fiscal cliff is always going to be addressed. they would have determined the complexion of the deal to go forward. i think the disspirited segment would have gone home, and they would have left a message to deal with.

i think it is much more incentive for the democrats to take a longer-term solution point of view. >> what do you see? >> i think it is sort of a short term vs. long-term scenario. the democrats have more of an incentive to be engaged in how the process plays out. already there has been chatter about how a lame duck deal has been structured. if not all may moved the deadline of a fiscal cliff, but gets to a path for resolving some of these issues, and the question over whether revenue

will be part of that solution, i would agree. the key for the republicans would be it themselves. i think both parties are ready to shift to talk about the tax burden. there are ways to get more revenue in. >> the weakest candidate ever about raising taxes, and he won. what do you think the bottom line will be? how strong do you think he will be for demand as bottom-line? >> i think it was an unprecedented a campaign ran on taxes.

it was in iowa last march he focused on these issues, and it is not just something to talk about. it was an issue important for those who elected him. these are the ones that are important to working white voters, so a significant portion of the vote in ohio and wisconsin as well as latinos and white women. of all the issues, is the one that is clear is. it may be the only one they can really focus on, so i think the challenge in washington is i think the republican party is in an odd position because their posture is let's not do this

thing that is the most popular to do. let's tax everybody or some group of people. if anything we have a grand bargain and moves away from the politically difficult things to do. as a progressive, i am not sure why the president would want to do that. all the republican party will ask me to do is things that are less popular with the public. >> i think the public is concerned about jobs and income. the see any way in the jobs and extensions were all earners? >> i think they were part of the

campaign. i want to talk about the economics, and it is interesting. what i hear them saying is something very popular. yes, we need new revenue, and we need new revenue. it has got to be from the base rather than increasing the race. the problem there is you actually cannot get the revenue you need just under 250. you have to go below? you have to raise taxes on the middle class. it happens to be 98% of all households, so i am not sure that works.

i am not nearly as obsessive about the economic impact of going from 35% to 39%, basically sending back to the clinton years where we actually had a budget surplus. while i get that we lowered the rates. you are going to get a ton of lower rates and a tiny bit of a broader base. i do not know how it is going to work. >> on the base broadening perspective, one is a proposal from the beginning. >> it is $500 billion over 10 years. the framework is something that is part of this budget.

the question of whether you can get all the way there, i do not know. i was asking the question of will the public have revenue. >> to stabilize revenue. >> even if it is for rich people, that will not close the deficit. there is a real problem with spending. this country is very divided. we saw that in the election results. it was not a clearcut mandate. >> if they are both here. >> the turnout was quiet role in -- was quite low. clearly there is not a great enthusiasm. >> if we are very divided at this point, what is the place

you can envision? >> we do not know, because the president has not taken the leadership. i think people on the hill are looking for his leadership. what will he do? >> he put forward his budget proposal. is in his budget, so he has a proposal that actually gets 4 trillion dollars, one trillion already done. >> pays for the sequestered. >> he is the only one that can bring members of his party. of the congressional leaders, he is the one.

if republicans have seeded grounds, let's not forget that. >> regardless of what ever will be offered in 2011, we are in a reality where without the president's signature, all the bush tax cuts will expire. if he says, i am not going to extend those under any circumstances, what do think the ?esponse will bee >> i think it is very divided. i think it is going to be very hard. we are going to be faced with a horrible scenario. when wall street drops, it is not a big companies that are suffering. it is people interested in in wall street.

>> wall street has done very well. when they drop, the overall quality of life -- >> let's move on. the dow is almost double what it was when president obama took office. the fiscal cliff is an enormous concern here in washington for a good reason, but in the country, jobs, of board mobility, all of these issues common-law -- up word mobility, and can you see any places where the parties may be able to agree in the area of the workforce, education, basically of ripping people to get ahead -- he quit in people to get ahead. is there any instance where it might diverge eminent -- where

it might diverge? >> i am actually optimistic. i came to washington in 1997. president clinton reelected. he had a republican senate. it really was that it had failed, and they recognize it was in their interest to get things done. over the last couple years , people have not been very focused on the election. the senator was a leader on workforce issues and education. you have republican leaders.

there are areas like education , whereand energy commo republicans have supported conclusions the president could have come to, that there has been of punishment to bipartisanship, and the big question is is that listed. do republicans worry about facing a tea party opponent? do they say, i am hopeful, because i think they may recognize there is not a lot. >> there are other complex issues about education and training. are there areas where you can see the two parties working

together famines -- working together? >> president obama invests in a jobs program that is scattered throughout the federal government that should be challenged to do better, so there need to be reformed so that people can get the relative to training, and when they graduate, they can get real jobs. now i think divided government is excellent opportunity to tackle the important issues in our country, and the largest issues we have our spending. we are going to lose because of

irresponsible deficit spending. if the countries are getting together, likud be contributing to a great deal to our country. -- we could be contributing a great deal to our country. >> the president certainly expressed openness to reductions in spending but not ending the federal entitlement to medicaid as ryan would do. were you think that goes after the election? >> i think the president really cross the rubicon by putting medicare and medicaid on the table. not to mention one romney tried to put back in, so that was very ironic.

i think he has already done so and will continue to. >> the thing about what we are talking about, medicare is one of the only policies that explicitly transfers resources, a retiring baby boom that is 80% white and moving it to an uninsured population but is heavily not white, and it really up as aking that it came m tax. the amount we are spending on these entitlements for the elderly and what it means about the ability to invest.

>> i think it is an insightful way to look at that as a transfer from guaranteed health care and medicare to the elderly to coverage to younger people who do not have the income they need. >> that is part of the attack. that was primarily cut to fund obamacare. >> the effect of that is you are moving resources from seniors to working age uninsured people, and you are meeting -- you are moving resources at the time the government spends more on seniors and kids. we almost never do that, shift resources to seniors. >> one of the reasons it

happened is some of those resources went back to coverage, but aarp. i think -- >> rebalancing. >> i think the president's policies and were attacked on the point of distribution. whether romney made those attacks, i cannot speak to, but i think the president's coalition should get up. >> the attacks were in -- --

work. 60% of retirees voted for romney. the interesting question is on when you go into this, democrats are laying down cut sis in programs. >> i think this is an important question. the issues on health care and medicare expenditures, the president was very specific about beneficiaries. >> when you think about an older population that is still 80% white and a younger population that is still, how does this

apply to the issue of fiscal consolidation? some people say it is a moral burden. paul ryan says we are going to leave it the way it is for all of you. >> it is more interesting than the specific transfer. it makes the mouth work. >> more sustainable today than it was -- it makes math work. >> more sustainable today than it was. >> there is far more interested in the broader question of the debt burden. it is the question of debt to gdp ratio, and in the generational context as well. i think people are much more aware than they were four or

five years ago. >> it is generational. young people voted overwhelmingly for the president. >> clearly, there is an interest in young people not having all this debt. on the other hand, are we saying, you are going to have to bear the burden? nothing really happens for 10 years. we put money in four seniors in the near term. it is a different program. generational lee, does that work -- generationally, does that work? >> there is time to make up the difference. that is the purpose, but the other thing i would say is i do not think there is a penalty. i think there is an opportunity to take on these issues and both

sides are going to be blamed for taking on popular -- unpopular positions. i think it is an excellent opportunity to tackle some of these. >> we have got a question. questions in the audience. to file away from what secretary administration were he was able resisting various kinds

of reform and retrenchment, "hey, if it was up to me, i would not be doing this, but i have these and therefore i have to --" in for president obama to sell and medicaid and job training ability to say, "look, the republicans made me do it"? >> in 1997 there was a budget there was a lot of savings in medicare to basically fund that budget deal, and democrats have resisted that. compromise. i guess my view of this is, to little depressing if our entire seats in the house -- still have seats. majority in the senate, whichif

you had said a year ago that madrid, people would haveand the president was reelected states. we may be divided -- >> but there is a tilt. >> in my view, there was a governance. that he had a year and half ago disappointment to people who worked very hard to get back to-- worked very hard to elect him. country like he did with payroll taxes, more and more people -- >> let me ask a final question down the line. if we say that the principal is the decline of economics

security and mobility, the in various permutations for much leverage we have to really change this -- if you are going things public policy to do to americans ascending the economic are the two or three things you chances of americans moving up? opportunity. enterprise system that will heavy regulatory and government bill clinton had his best to find during 1997 to do that -- best triumph during 1997 toof course he had a republican -- no, no, nafta -- trade gone.

it is to the president's own benefit, for his own legacy, if he tacks to the middle andit will disappoint his base, the their base pay but for his own tack to the center. >> when we see the income gaps showing up in the data, we have to look very closely at the whether i.t. has a federal issue or state issue or both, one can debate, but there is a serious crisis in terms of the outcome attainment.

another one is the tax code. asking earlier, are we going to progressivity of the tax code or reforming the tax code on awe like the code the way it is, we just want to make a progressive -- is there a way to blend those issues and have a code that is more efficient,it might make the economy grow a little bit. >> the 2 or 3 things help the economy get ahead, neera. >> immigration reform. it does depress wages that you

have millions of people undocument. if you move people out of that status, that will have a positive benefit not just to people, but to wages being depressed. equity is a critical issue. -- in the short-term, medium- term, and long term, there is so much inequity in education. it is not something that the political process likes to discuss, but it is one in which we need to think more creatively about how -- ideas not good for our -- it is not good for us in the medium or long-term. >> nice to go last on this because i can think. [laughter] a really high-quality pre-k -- >> i agree. >> education for kids at the bottom of the income scale. this is supported by conservatives and liberals

alike. a nobel-laureate economist to i think is associated with republicans has written eloquently about how critically important -- and there has got to be a significant government will pick it will not happen withou -- significant government role. it will not happen without. and this is of be, but full employment. during my lifetime, the only time i've seen conditions improve is when the unemployment rate was 4 or below. i don't think that left to its own devices, even with eight economy better than the current one -- by the way, we have a lot of infrastructure problems. we could marry a problem of infrastructure repairs in the public sector, and high unemployment -- >> this has been a great pair of panels thinking about the policy implications of the changing electorate that was vividly on display last night.

you have been a terrific and -- what's the word -- endurance in this audience. [laughter] >> join me in thanking our distinguished panelists. [applause] i would like to thank the underwriters were able to bring >> next, a group of activists. we will also hear from harry reid and john boehner. post-election analysis continues tomorrow as roll-call holds its impact conference. pollsters will look at exit polls and the makeup of the next congress. that is at kennecott 15 eastern on season and a. charlie coats and -- that is at

10:15 eastern on c-span. >> america ranks 29th on the speed of its internet behind moldavia and ukraine. we pay the highest prices by far. by one measure we pay 38 times what the japanese play. if you have one of these packages, you pay an average with taxes in the u.s., $160. in france you pay $38 u.s., and you get worldwide calling. you get worldwide television, and your internet is 20 times faster at of loading when 10 times foster -- 20 times faster at of loading and 10 times

faster at downloading. all of them understand that the railroads were increasingly important. you had to move things like steel. the 20th century came along. with highways and airports that were crucial to economic growth. now it is the information super hero. david k. johnston on the many ways corporations tried to rob you blind, saturday night at 10:00 a.m. eastern and sunday night at 9:00. now reaction to a election results from media activists. we will hear from the tea party patriots. this is 40 minutes.

>> good afternoon. my name is richard. i am going to speak for a few minutes. and i am going to introduce five nationally known as conservative leaders. we will each talk for a little bit, and then we will open it for q&a. the battle to take over the republican party begins today, and there comes some good news. conservatives are saying never again are we going to nominate a big government establishment republican for president. what's more, we will not have to. conservatives have a new national leaders and potential candidates. of theght's election

conservative mike pence as governor of indiana mean that yesterday's events will spell the end of big government republicanism. they will join scott walker, of bobby jindal, rand paul, marco rubio. andinia's attorney general, 50 members of the house who stood for conservative principles and voted against the debt ceiling deal. republicans never win the presidency unless they nationalize the election around conservative principles and a conservative agenda. we do not always win nationalize the elections, but we never win unless the candidate has two

world views. romney chose not to follow the path but lead to republicans winning the white house seven out of the last 11 alexians. the republican national chairman, mitch mcconnell, speaker john boehner, and other republican leaders behind the a big election failure should be replaced with those more in tune with the conservative base of the party. consultants such as karl rove, ed gillespie common and and and now the romney campaign adviser stuart stevens will never be hired to run or consult on a national campaign again, and no one would give a dime to ineffectual super pacs. mitt romney's loss was a death

toll. the disaster of 2012 signifies the beginning of the battle to take over the republican party. now we will hear from the chairman of for america. >> thank you, richard. good afternoon. i am also the founder and president of media center. it was atrocious this year. the question is to what degree did you have an impact in the atrocious news, and we do not know. it is going to tell us what is

going to happen as a result of fact, -- as a result of that, so we will have more to say. how is it more republican and conservative pundits have been wrong? virtually every poll showed striking distance. why were so many so wrong? perhaps it is simply because many of us could not fathom the united states would not willingly choose the path of destruction. in 2008 people did not know what they are buying. certainly, america would not buy it again. we have to ask how did this happen. some of us argued this would be obama by a hair or romney by a landslide and for good reasons.

in politics there are two truth. the fine or be divine. -- the fine or be defined. given obama's atrocious record now, arguably the worst performance in history and given that he had nothing to offer except more of the same, it should have been a cakewalk for romney to define them, but romney did not. second, it is a certainty that when republicans to distinguish themselves from democrats, they win. democrats always run to the left. republican support hovers around 20%. the number is at least double the number of liberals. hence you support the conservative agenda, you win.

obama did not support the conservative agenda. neither did mitt romney. at the end of the day, conservatives were left in the cold. romney is a moderate, and his campaign embarked on a defense from the outset. for the past four years, we have been telling the republicans in congress they would choose to fight when we take the senate in 2012. time and again, we warned the senate leadership that when was if and that if would never materialize unless they took the fight to democrats and gave a reason to galvanized behind them. we expressed that symbolic, meaningless and both are useless.

it addresses the crisis that threatens to bankrupt us. they should honor their solemn commitments. we suggested they demand and embrace to the return of constitutional government. we were told in response that when we take the senate, all things will be done. then they fumigated the room, and we laugh. it became clear the senate gop was going to do nothing. they projected six, seven, eight seats pickups. that disappeared. they accomplished the impossible. they lost two seats. not one democratic incumbent was defeated. it is time for conservatives to withhold any support from the republican party unless and

until the gop earns it. to do so common on the following commitment must be made by them -- to do so, the following commitment must be made by them. anything that enhances the left- wing agenda. second, a vote to fund obamacare is as committed to terminate from planned parenthood. a pledge not to raise any taxes on the rich or the middle class or anyone else. four, and aggressively support a to, cap, and allen's agenda -- and balanced agenda to put the country on the fast track back to a balanced budget. fifth, aggressively support an agenda to undue regulatory madness in washington. permanently banned earmarks. reform the tax code during return the country to

constitutional government. commit itself to a strong , rejecting cuts, and embrace an agenda in all its forms. the gop has an excellent party platform. if you want support, support your own platform first. thank you. >> thank you, brent. i am the policy director representing the america's principles project. >> thank you, richard. to follow up, i think it is important for conservatives to start by confronting the fact that the 2012 election was the historic victory friday american left. unlike 1992 or 1996 or 2008, the

democratic national take it did little to obscure its agenda. it would be surprising if they did not interpret the victory as a mandate to complete europeanizing of the american government. using government to impose its will raise it from same-sex marriage to green curve rain for fossil fuels with such methods for hydraulic fracking. apparent democratic victories in 25 out of the 33 races. hanging onto the house by a slightly reduced margin will be a small consolation for those of us that hope the repeal of obamacare and broad based tax entitlement reform.

republicans have lost four of the last six elections and five of the last six in terms of the popular vote. this followed three landslide victories in the year of ronald reagan that dominated the politics of the world. if this was not a time to implement across the board conservative politics, it is hard to imagine when such a time would come. >> thank you. morgan. >> thank you, richard. while we certainly had some bright spot with the election of a second pro-life women in the senate and the retaining of michele bachmann, who was

heavily targeted by the left, those were three of bright spots. overall, not a great night. despite our growing power among women and almost every demographic, there is a gap between public opinion and electoral office that was not closed. yesterday's's elections are invitation to the republican party to return to fundamentals. what are the fundamentals of a winning republican strategy? they are social, economic, and foreign policy, fully embracing each one. what we had was one wobbly leg with about $1 billion from the republican side from the top of the ticket and affecting every other senate race in the country because of that influence. when fully engaged, each of

those policy areas, a real mandate is created, and there is a resonance that brings public policy leaders into office so those areas can be implemented, without fully engaging on each of those areas and social policy, we leave the votes on the table every single time. what we had was a factor truth on social issues on one side but a full embrace of the war on social issues on the other side. obama have launched a war over abortion and the life issue. therefore, he got to completely decide what the issue was, and what is it? rape. abortion and rape in the minds of many voters, because the

debate was not fully engage. his weaknesses, is extreme positions on late storm abortions -- late term abortions, i'm not saving children born after a failed of abortion, none of these were explored in any debates. allied that planned parenthood does mammogram's, villi that -- the lie that planned parenthood's does mammograms. voters overwhelmingly disagree with those extreme positions of the president and the democratic party. moving forward common -- moving forward, they must exploit or risk alienating the growing

space. the war on women, was that affective? did it actually moved women voters? when you look at the data, you have to say no. the gender gap actually decreased this election. after that launch of the war on women theme, every single debate clearly did not stick. the women's vote was very fluid. they were completely over estimated -- underestimated about women actually care about and what our positions are. has the pro-life issue been repudiated? absolutely not. you cannot win a war that is not engaged.

you cannot be repudiated if no one has ever heard it, and that is what happened on the national level, and that is why so many votes were on the table that this cannot happen again. we are going to be looked at how we endorse and train candidates. thell not bee sending into field without knowledge of how to exploit extremes. we are going back to the drawing board, and we will see a new set of candidates. i want to make one last point, and that is social issues. are they the aid burden? if you look at every single statewide race across the country that also had a ballot initiatives, every state but one

of the ballot initiative ran better than the losing candidate. thank you very much. i look forward to questions. >> thank you. next is the national toward the nature of the party patriots. -- of tea party patriots. >> for those of on -- for those of us the believe america is the greatest nation in the world, we want someone who will fight for us. we want someone who inspired millions of independence and reagan democrats to join us and the idea that america and now is a shining city upon a hill. what we got was a week, moderate hand-picked by the

establishment of the republican party. the presidential loss is unequivocally on them. with the loss of the hand-picked candidate, the tea party is the last, best hope to restore our founding principles. give while they take longer to it -- will they take longer to restore with president obama back in office? we are not going away. it took nearly 100 years to take america to the plays we are today. it will take more than three and a half years to restore our constitution. we are going to keep fighting. we respect the constitution, and we know for america toand why os essential for america's greatness.

when we fight for our principles, we win. our work begins today. county by county, district by district, we will fight for freedom the way others in america have fought for freedom in the past. we turn our attention to local and state governments and congress to fight the battles that lie ahead including balancing the budget, repealing obamacare, cutting the debt, holding the line on the debt ceiling, some things are worked -- worth fighting for. our constitution is worth fighting for.

america is worth fighting for. we will continue to fight. >> thank you. grover norquist had a conflict at the last minute and will not able to join us. next we will hear from the president of the park project. , cuba. the project is a media project that works with 100 conservative organizations across the country to help us get a consistent message. what i want to tell the conservative movement is that like we have done before over the past 50 years, is to to principles. the conservative principles are those that have been mentioned several times so far this afternoon. freedom of course and a free economy and strong national security, traditional values, the rule of law, and adherence to the constitution. those are the things that the conservative movement was built on starting in nearly 50's. it is the things that keep coming back and i should tell

the conservative movement that elections come and go. there was loss for all sorts of reasons. the election will be analyzed, it is being analyzed already. constantly as to why people voted the way they did and they're all sorts of reasons. it is the principles that conservatives believe in that will keep it going. the conservative movement is not going away. a couple of things need to be done is the conservative needs to and will adopt a unified plan of projects that need to be stuck to, it is called no excuses and it will be released within the next week. that will be things some of which branch mentioned in his statement. things like their tax increases, no earmarks, defunding obamacare, keeping the

defense strong. what the purpose of that is to hold the leadership's feet to the fire. there is little satisfaction with the republican leadership in the house and what no excuses will be designed to do is to give conservatives in the house a list of things which they can go to the leadership and say no more excuses, we will not hear anything that you have to say as they have done but get these things done. the other thing is the conservative movement needs to look ahead. we will look at this election and figure out why things happened the way they did but it is time to put mitt romney in the rearview mirror and proceed. there is a long bench on the

republican side, many others of home -- who will be there to be the candidate. we need a clear view of where we're going. in 2014 there is as bright a view of the senate takeover by republicans as any time in the last 30 or 40 years. the number of republican scifres up for election as opposed to the democrats after two more years of a, -- obama, if republicans can take back the senate, they will make the last two years of the obama administration immeasurable time for the president. those are few of the things we look forward -- those are a few of the things.

we look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you. >> this is one of the examples -- can you give examples of how mitt romney could have complained and the regret -- [inaudible] i do not think there's any question he took all the right stance. that is not the argument he took all the right positions and we were all happy to spread those commitments around. the problem was not communicating on a national stage with obama what his positions were. and when he was attacked, he led the attacks stick.

an attack 6 unless you repudiated in some way. i would say that if not nationalizing the issue was the problem. we were happy to endorse him when the time came. we assume that he would make it more of a national issue. >> i agree. it is important for the -- the nominee to have conservative positions on social issues but if he does not defend those positions in a presidential debate, it is a problem because then the voters hear one side of it. example is when governor romney was going down a list of flaws in obamacare he did not mention the hhs mandate.

if it had been better known, it would have hurt obama. it is one thing to know voters do not like the mandate. i agree. it was not a matter of the positions he took. it was his failure to elevate them when it seemed appropriate in terms of the natural flow of debates in campaigning. >> [inaudible]

a lot of hispanic families share the values that killed reelection. should they push an immigration bill with some kind of amnesty provision [inaudible] >> i believe the republicans in congress should get involved in comprehensive immigration reform. not amnesty in the sense that all is forgiven and go directly to citizenship but doing something for the 11 million people who are here illegally, it is a threshold issue. if they think the republican

party is now welcoming toward them, it is hard to get their attention on anything else. i would also argue that social issues, they are among the most pro-family, pro-work voting strength in the population and the failure to use those issues and try to win over hispanic motorhome was a major ally in the republican effort in 2012. >> you answer it when you said hispanic family values. the answer is hispanic family values. i was -- we were all struck after the 2008 election when the republican leadership told us that there were two things that had to happen. there needed to be outreach to hispanics and blacks and republicans had to get away from the social issues. if you look at the only thing, it was the marriage amendment in california. if you look at why it won, it

was a crossover of hispanics and black pastors and joined the republicans. rather than look at hispanics and blacks from the standpoint of what we white people want to look at, why not ask them what they're -- they're interested in? wynola get their values and their cultural agenda and their priorities and address that? that is where there is great common ground and i do not understand why republicans seemingly are afraid of their own shadow and. when it comes to that. >> in the first national election, president obama embraced gay marriage. [inaudible] is this a losing issue going forward for conservatives? >> this is an issue that is free much under debate. you're right. there were four blue stage

yesterday that approved gay marriage. most of them by very narrow margins. there were far less margins in the state legislatures in some of those states. would-be disaster is is if the obama administration had used the judiciary to oppose a solution on all 50 states that involved making doma unconstitutional and cutting off a debate when the other side made gains there is a lot of victories in something that is so far unique to the northeast and the pacific coast as a popular base movement should then be imposed on the midwest, the south and every other part of the country, 30 -- 32 states voted to prohibit it. >> i take my hat off to the

democrats for sally embracing the principles. became ready for flight and they did not back down one bit when i came to their perspective. or abortion. we're worthy republicans? -- where were the republicans? have republican showed up, maybe there would have been a difference.

rex i want to say this, it is similar to why the republicans fight against health care bill failed. that was a failure to put resources, focus, and energy into working on each constituency that could have voted down the bill. the pro-life democrats being a great example. about $1 million out of the $80 million that was spent had been focused on that, maybe it would have voted differently and we would not be talking about obamacare today. >> i have two questions. the first is is there an acknowledgement that the demographics in this country, that is changing, there is a changing face of america, whatrt do you do about that? what happens now that you have the fiscal cliff? you have this deadline, how does that change? does your approach change post- election now? >> there is definitely a

demographic change. we all recognize that. there is a school of people that work in demographics who said that if romney had won this election it would be the last national election that a republican would win under the same rules and principles. if you look at the numbers and there was a zogby poll that came out this afternoon that shows where -- how those numbers have changed over the last two or four years and they are significant. republicans have to address that when -- one way or another. i had dinner with arthur davis who outlined what he thought and his points were significant in terms of what blacks and hispanics believe or what the one. it will be of long time before the wind. >> regarding the fiscal cliff, and the economic issues. what we saw last night were that the voters voted for the status quo which is gridlock. they did not see a clear distinction between either of the party so they went with what they now and what they know is what we have seen in the last two years, is a standstill.

they continue to evaluate which direction they want to go and that is what we will see in the next few weeks and in the next few years we will see what we have seen in the last two years. >> i'm curious whether you share richard mourdock's view that [inaudible] >> that is something i feel very strongly. i to read this it seems like every day. if i have a home and want to

sell for $200,000 and you want to buy it for $170,000, there is a compromise somewhere. if i want to buy your home for one letter sent thousand dollars and you do not want to sell it, i do not understand where the compromises. conservatives and tea party ears are a sick and tired of republican leaders at the national and state level of compromising with democrats which lead to the continual growth of government. why can we not compromise on how much we're going to reduce the size of government? that is a measure that we will hold the republican leaders feet to the fire on. we want compromise in reducing the size of government. we're sick and tired for the last 50 + years of seeing republican leaders compromised with democrats and pro the size of government. >> it is a simple formula. when a compromise in their direction they lose trade when a compromise in our direction we win. >> what about compromise in the middle? >> there is no such thing. >> i have a good example. this president began his first

term talking about common ground on abortion. he was sick and tired of what we're sick and tired of which is arguing about it all the time. there is no place in the gestation of a baby that is protected. that is the president's position. many points along the continuum. try to find some compromise to where he made clear, there is perfect clarity what his position is and that is there is no part in the continuum, not even after the baby is born. it became clear that compromise was talk for i am trying to bring your around to my point of view. >> the tea party is having [inaudible] again. it is the tea party dead or where is it going? >> three and a half years ago there were 22 of us. there was a poll three weeks

ago, 40 million people would be voting based on the tea party principles and identify with us. from nothing four years ago to 34 months later, 22 people to 40 million people. it is not the death of the tea party. we're promoting our values of fiscal responsibility and limiting permit -- government and free markets against campaigns that have been campaigning for the past six years. we're new, we're not going away, and we will continue to grow and get better. >> to put a finer point on that, i could not agree more. i feel that because of the tea party and the conservative movement working at the grass- roots level, all the way up to the republican presidential

nominee in four years, within that time, the conservative movement tea party will take over the republican party within four years. there is one last question. if not, thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow, the christian science monitor and bought husak of the hill discuss the impact of the election on the house and senate. and we look at what is next for the congress of the washington post. washington journal starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> i need some help over here. >> he tried to get out without anybody knowing. he rolled himself out. >> he was issued --

>> to the thesis of the film, is the medical view of escape fire that the status quo is not working. >> more with the producer and director of escape fire, the fight to rescue american oppose the health care on c-span's q&a. >> seized and programming is good because they try to have the issues and the moderators do a good job of staying detached and not getting and offering

their own opinion. it is very comprehensive about covering a lot of the different house and senate and other public affairs senators that i would not normally be exposed to. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your television provider. here is a sample of what c-span viewers that the sec. >> i have been working since i was 16. those people that need that help, i am not on food stamps or

anything like that. but i still want to support you. because of obama, i am able to go to school. i think that governor romney lost a lot of people because of that 47% hot thing. >> i can't believe that we, again, got mr. obama into the white house. i am a nurse and it has been hard here finding a job. this is due to a medicare cuts, and you go to the groceries.

>> i am shocked and dismayed that this man could have won again. so many people are out of work. i am an executive in this community who has lost his job. i was able to find a job, but there are no jobs. the woman that called before, the situation with obama and with our troops and with our embassy, i think he handled it improperly and i would not be surprised if, before he gives his inaugural speech, that there might not be an impeachment trial that starts. i think the country is more divided today than ever before. i think so many people have moved into the bottom side of the scale because there is no

work in this country and it is not going to get better. >> i wanted to address why i believe governor romney did not win. he will blatantly lied to our face and he was called out numerous times. everybody keeps saying that obama attacked him in the beginning, but i don't want to call that an attack. i want to call if he made the people wear. he give us the opportunity to choose what would be best for us. there will be making it seem like that is where they are. >> people are cutting the

president down for the social security and all that. i am on disability. i am giving everything i got right. it is the insurance companies, not the president. the slack that i get is really uncalled for. if people would start going and making an effort to making the world better instead of trying to cut it down all the time, we might get somewhere. >> i can't believe that the american people did not vote for a man with a proven record.

so what? he is rich. he knows what he is doing. he gave to charity, he cared about the american people, and the media has failed them. we need ask ourselves and we will find out what was his, you know, saying he did not know he was going to be heard. i think we will find out what he meant when he talked to the russian president and said, wait until i am reelected and i have more flexibility. that is scary to me. the benghazi thing is totally just -- people have closed eyes. >> i started out as a flaming liberal and i came to realize that in the last analysis, it is about what your country can do

-- what you can do for your country, not what your country can do for you. we have seen the constitution thrown into the scrap heap of history. so many ways i can't even begin to start describing them to you. >> people realized our elected officials are so irresponsible to say that we have to do things like the household. the government is not run like our household and that is ridiculous for someone to use that. it is not the way the government is run. in our household, we don't have certain things available to us. we have to think on a grander scale, and he was able to get us

to where we are. just buy the things that he was able to do, the congress was not working with him. >> continuing the conversation on the results of the elections as the final returns come in. you can weigh in on facebook and twitter. tonight, reaction to last night's election results from senate majority leader harry reid and house speaker john boehner. then analysis from the national journal. not the>> america ranks 29 cane speed of internet behind multimedia and the ukraine. we pay the highest prices by far. if you buy one of these triple

play packages, you pay out $160. in france, you pay $38 us, and you get nationwide calling, worldwide television, and your internet is 20 times faster of loading at 20 times faster downloading. all of these countries understand a fundamental principle. in the nineteenth century, the railroads were the key to economic growth. you had to move heavy things like steel. as the twentieth century came along, it was the interstate highway program, for example. they're crucial to economic growth. now is the information superhighway.

>> after words, this weekend on c-span 2's book tv. democrats held on to their senate majority and they will have 53 seats in the next congress. harry hreid talked about the election results. after that, we will hear from joh nboehner. -- john boehner. >> i am glad to be back. it was a late night, early morning. but it is clearly we're going to increase our majority. but the results show a number of things. a number of things for certain. of is that we're the party diversity. look at the results from all over the country. i'm looking forward to working

with so many great accomplished centers. i have talked to virtually everyone of them. when i came to the senate, barbara mikulski was it as far as women. now one-third of our caucus is women. the remarkable work done by all these great centers to be. but the election is over and we have enormous challenges ahead of us. they're right here. and we have to sit down and go to work on it now, not wait. this was the message the american people sent from all over and that is they're tired of these partisan gridlocks. they're tired of things like i have one goal, to defeat obama. that is gone. obama was reelected

overwhelmingly. the american people want us to work together. republicans want us to work together. democrats want us to work together. they want to balance the -- a balanced approach to everything. especially with the huge deficit and taxes are part of that. i can remember my first president after i had been selected as the democratic leader. i was so afraid, i really was. and as i do on occasion, off the cuff, i said i know how to fight. i know how to dance. i do not dance as well as i fight but i would much rather dense hair -- any time and i still feel that way. it is better to dance than to

fight. it is better to work together. everything does not have to be a fight. that is how it has been the last couple of years. everyone should comprehend especially my senate friends that legislation is the art of compromise with consensus building. that is political scientists have studied this for generations, they continue to say the way we get things done is to work together. we need republicans to help us. there is -- compromise is not a dirty word. i am willing to negotiate any time on any issue. i have spent a lot of time here but before i came here, that is what i did. i was a lawyer.

i had lots and lots of jury trials and frankly, any time we had a jury trial in one sense it was a failure. we should have been able to work something out. and so i am convinced that we need to start working together a lot. gridlock is not the solution. it is the problem. that is what has happened. i repeat, to have a leader of the republicans in the senate say his number one goal is to defeat obama, that is how we legislated for two years. i filed cloture on 17 different judges. that has never been done before. there is no time for excuses in any way.

it is time we get to work. we can achieve really good things and work together. that is what the american people said last night in a big way. i'm going to do everything within my power to be as conciliatory as possible. i want to work together. i want everyone to understand you can push us around. we want to work together. questions? >> i talked this morning to a couple of republicans who said some things, [inaudible] mitch mcconnell and leadership could not push for enough amendments for votes on amendments like marriage or repealing health care or guns. republicans will push hard. >> how about six weeks on contraception in the highway bill.

is that a pretty good start? do you remember that? >> it looks like there are motions to proceed. do you have any changes -- plans to change the filibuster? >> you ask the question, i am answering it. the rules have been abused and we're going to work to change them. we're going to make the senate a meaningful place and we will make it so we can get things done so people who want boats on what you mentioned, six marriage and abortion, the american people are interested in doing something about the staggering debt we have. the election was pretty clear in a number of ways.

the president campaigned around the country saying we know what the problems are. we just need some revenue. that was the issue. the mandate was, look at the exit polls and the polling. the vast majority of the american people, rich, poor, everyone agrees that the rich, richest of the rich have to help. >> on the fiscal cliff, speaker banner is saying no increase in taxes. >> i had a conversation this morning with the speaker, it was a pleasant conversation as all my conversations with him are. he has been -- is doing an event and we will wait to see what he has to say there. i have a fine relationship with him. my staff works well with his staff and this is not something that i am going to draw lines in the sand. i think we need to work together. >> [inaudible] >> of course. it is so simple.

>> what is your take on that? is that something that must be done? >> republicans must make a choice. we're willing to work it out. i do not know how they think they can benefit waiting until sequestration. >> [inaudible] broad solution to the fiscal cliff -- >> i am not for kicking the can down the road. we have done that for too much and we know what the issue is, we need to solve the issue. waiting for a month, six weeks, six months, that is not going to solve the problem. we know what needs to be done. i think that we should just roll up our sleeves and get it done.

i have been leading to the right for to much. >> the president said last week that will hit the debt ceiling again. are you prepared -- >> the debt ceiling will come after the first year. they tried it before. they, the republicans. they tried it before. we're not going to raise the debt ceiling. they want to go through that again. fine, but we're not going to be held subject to something that was done as a matter of fact in all previous administrations. >> [inaudible] >> if it has to be raised, we will raise it. >> abuse of to -- spoken to -- have you spoken to any other white house official about what they will speak out about? >> i had a conversation with the president last night and we're going to work together.

the president was very clear. more than once in his very fine speech he gave the american people last night after he was declared the winner and he wants -- we will do that. i like everybody down there but i am listening to the president first. >> a conversation with angus king last night, what was your impression about his decision? >> i talked to him on several occasions and we have some pleasant conversations. he is going to make a decision soon as to what he's going to do. you should talk to him. >> he will not accept any tax deal. is that your position, too? >> as i tried to make it clear

here, there was a message sent to us by the american people. based on the campaign. that is people making all this money have to contribute a little bit more. in all the exit polling, the polling we have done, the vast majority support that. including rich people. they have a smile, this diatribe by the republicans, some republicans saying we're not going to raise taxes on business, please, everybody. we now -- know the president, will agree that there -- we all agree that there is 2% of people who are worried, 3% cut in -- donald trump.

we should worry about him. >> given the results of the election, where does immigration reform fall in your priority list? >> high priority. i've tried, i spent more time on immigration than any other issue and it is interesting what has happened. mccain has not been with us on immigration reform. the only thing we need to get immigration reform done is fewer republican votes. could we get a few republicans to join us? it is in our list and we will have some votes on it. not for political reasons. it is the wrong thing to do to

not have confidence in immigration reform. the system is broken and needs to be fixed. >> [inaudible] >> it is high on my list, yes. >> given that house republicans lost and senate democrats pick them up, despite the fact that a lot of the washington dynamics have been the same, do you feel like the democrats have leverage? >> your statement -- this is as far faces you can be. we have an overwhelming reelection and we picked of seats in the senate, we pick up seats in the house. that is not the status quo. >> [inaudible] then governor romney in the popular vote and getting 10 million votes less than 2008. does he have a mandate [inaudible] >> i am not going to get into the george bush, social

security type thing. i have things that we're obligated to do for the american people. one is to get our problems solved fiscally and maintain a strong relationship and something we have not talked about here, create jobs. we have cooperation from the republicans, we can treat a lot of jobs. let's just think about this. all the infrastructure have stopped us from doing it. i hope they do not do it again. teachers, firefighters, police officers. we had a piece of legislation on the floor that said these many people, public employees that have been laid off, bring the back end we have the surtax of people making more than $1 million year would have to pay a surtax of 0.3 of 1%. people are making more than a million dollars a year, the vast majority of them are happy.

job creation is one of the easiest things we can do. we need help from the republicans. >> how do you plan to reset your relationship with senator halloran now that the campaign is over? do you think you can work together? >> we have been friends for 25 years. a difficult election i had in 1998. he was a champion. he was so helpful. i have affection for dean heller. we will be able to work together. i worked with john ensign. i think that you and everyone has to acknowledge what good

friends where and how well we work together. i have no problem with that. >> [inaudible] can you get beyond that? >> as far as big blow ups, that is a minor in my life. thanks, everybody. >> do think that climate change legislation can make it through the senate and where is that on your priority list? >> for me having been the chairman of the environment committee twice, i have spent my -- a lot of my career greeting voters in nevada and doing things that i think are environmentally important. climate change is an extremely important issue for me and i hope we can address it reasonably as we have seen with the storms that are overwhelming our country in the world. we need to do something about it. thank you.

>> good afternoon, everyone. let me offer my congratulations to polo in the first lady and joe biden. -- to president obama and the first lady and joe biden. i hope to the election were turned out differently. mitt romney and paul ryanair good men and leaders.

i want to wish them well. the american people have spoken. they have reelected president obama and they have again reelected a republican majority in the house of representatives. if there is a mandate yesterday, it is a mandate to work together on the solutions to the challenges we face as a nation. my attitude is not a confrontation but conviction. we face a series of tremendous challenges and a great opportunity. weeks away from now looms the so-called fiscal clef. a combination of automatic tax increase mandated by law. within months of the fiscal cliff, congress will be asked to raise the debt ceiling. legislation will be needed to keep the government running as a continuing resolution under which we are currently operating expires. amid all of the short-term

hurdles, we face the greatest challenge of all, a massive debt that is smothering growth and exceeding the size of our economy. there will be many who will say with the election over, we should confront the first challenges by electing the top two tax rates expire and pushing it off to somewhere else. they have lessing based in the same temporary policies that have put this into this fix. now they are saying, let's have more of the same. let's to drive our economy of the fiscal cliff and we will call it a day. that might get us out of town but it will not get us out of the problem and it will hurt our economy. we cannot keep going on like that, we cannot set the bar that low. it is time we raise the bar. the american people this week

did give us a mandate to simply do the simple thing -- they elected us to lead. they gave us a mandate to work together to do the best for our country. we know what the best thing is, an agreement that sends the signal to our economy and to the world that after years of hunting on the fiscal challenges we face, -- punting the fiscal challenges we face, 2013 is going to be different. if we want to lift the cloud of debt hanging over our country. we will not solve the problem overnight. we certainly will not do it in a lame-duck session of conference -- congress. it will not be solved by taking a plunge of the fiscal cliff. what we can do is avoid it in a manner that serves as a catalyst for major solutions enacted in 2013 to begin to solve the problem.

republican majority stands ready to work with the president to do what is best for our country. that is exactly what i told the president earlier today. that is the will of the people and we will answer to them. doing what is best means considering the impact of the policies that will be set in motion. princeton young says going over part of the fiscal " read a cliff -- fiscal cliff would cost more than 70,000 jobs. it also confirmed many of those hit with a rate increase will be small business owners, the very people who both parties acknowledge are that he to private sector job creation. there is an alternative. it involves making real changes to the financial changes and reforming our tax code to curb special interest loopholes and

deductions. by working together in creating a cleaner tax code, we can get our country is stronger, healthier economy. that means more revenue, which is what the president wants. because the american people expect us to find common ground, we are willing to except additional revenue by way of tax reform. there is a model that supports economic growth. in 1986, with a democrat house, and a republican president named ronald reagan. in 1986, there were skeptics who doubted the economic benefits of tax reform. those skeptics were wrong. a stanford economist said the 1986 reform is the sort of an unsung hero of the good economic times we have had for a long time. the time has come again to revamp the tax code. and if we do, he argues, there will be a response and revenue

will come in. but american people also expect us to solve the problem. for that reason, in order to garner republican support for new revenues, the president must reduce spending and shore up entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt. imposee not seeking to our will on the president, we are asking him to make good god in his balanced approach. he has called for a balanced approach to the deficit, increase revenues. that is not balanced if it means higher taxes on small businesses that are the key to getting our country moving again in keeping a moving. a balanced approach is not balanced by increasing the amount of money coming into the coffers of government without cutting spending and addressing entitlements of the same time. a balanced approach is not balance if it is done in the washington way of raising taxes

now and ultimately failing to cut spending in the future. a balanced approach is not balanced if it means cutting the defense instead of making the common-sense cuts that are needed. real economic growth to elude us in the first term of the president. without it, we cannot solve our debt problem. for the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement, we're willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions. what matters is where the increase comes from and what type of reform comes with it. does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the american people earning? or does it come as a byproduct of growing our economy, energized by a simpler tax code, with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all? at the same time, are we supporting growth by taking

concrete steps to put our country's entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing or are we going to continue to avoid a matter, the root of the problem? shoring up entitlements and closing deductions, and moving to a simpler system will bring jobs home and result in a stronger, healthier economy. history teaches that this is the right path to take. tax reform, done in the manner i have described, will result in additional revenue that the president wants. it will support economic growth, which means more revenue generated for the treasury. it will improve the efficiency of the tax system, which means additional revenue as well. we're closer than many think to the critical mass that is needed to get tax reform done. the president and i talked about it did during the summer

of 2011. they offered proposals in the so-called super committee that provided revenue via tax reform. to get economy moving again is the only way we will be able to balance the federal budget. the question we should be asking, is not which taxes should i race to get more revenue, but which reforms can we agree on that will get our economy moving again? there are two ipads we can take to get to revenue. -- two paths we can take to get revenue. feeding the growth of our economy through a better tax code will. the president has signaled a willingness to do tax reform with lower rates. republicans have signaled a willingness to accept new revenue, if it comes from

growth and reform. let's start the discussion there. i am not suggesting we compromise our principles but i am suggesting we commit ourselves to creating an atmosphere where we can seek common ground and seized it. if we cannot find common ground, we will continue to operate on a tax code on a year- to-year basis. emmys will continue to extend major programs for a month at a time. it means we will face expiration of the government's borrowing authority. and we will be on constant downgrade watch from our creditors. in the new testament, there is a parable. one man who built his house on sand and the other who built his house on rock. the foundation of the economy, the rock of our economy, has always been small businesses and the private sector. i ran one of the small businesses and i can tell you raising a small business tax means they do not grow.

in small businesses do not grow, our economy does not grow. if our economy does not grow, we do not have a prayer of digging our country out of a hole that we call our national debt. this is like going over part of the fiscal cliff is no solution at all. instead of building a house on sand, let's bill that on iraq. instead of raising small business taxes, -- let's built in on a rock. instead of raising small- business taxes, let's plan for a serious process, focused on substance, not on theatrics. it will require weeks of work, rather than a week and a photo ops. it will not happen around the campfire or in a secret room of some air force base, over 18 holes of golf. this will take time. if we are striving for a

solution, i am confident we can get there. mr. president, this is your moment. we are ready to be led. not as democrats or republicans that as americans. we want you to leave, not as a liberal or conservative, but as president of the united states. we want you to succeed. lead to challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has deluded us. let's rise above the the function and do the right thing together for our country. thank you. >> could you clarify on tax reform? [inaudible] >> tomorrow, of the christian science monitor and bought husak of the hill discuss the impact of the election on the house and senate.

and we look at what is next for the congress with scott wilson of the washington post. washington journal, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> america ranked 29 in speed of internet behind leading industrial lights like india and the year crane. -- ukraine. we pay 30 times with the japanese pay for information. if you buy one of the triple play packages like i have the tom, you pay an average of $160. in france, you pay $38 u.s. and you get worldwide calling to 70 countries, a worldwide television, and your internet is 20 times faster of loading at 10 times faster downloading.

-- uploading and 10 times faster downloading. in the nineteenth century, the canals and railroads were the key to economic growth when you had to move things like steel. the twentieth century came along and it was highways, interstate highways, and airports that were crucial to economic growth. now is the information superhighway. >> the best selling author david johnston about the way as corporations try to rob you blind. this weekend on c-span 2's book tv. >> c-span programming is good because they try to keep a close eye o.

the cover a lot of the different, both the house, the senate, and different, other, woodrow wilson, and other public a pair -- public affair sets that i would not be exposed to normally. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you by the public service. >> president obama won reelection with 303 electoral votes, with florida's 29th undetermined. just over 50% of the possible vote. the national journal hosted several panels.

as a night as many people expected. we will talk about that today and why and how the president may go forward from this victory, was quicker and bigger than many people expected. we like to tell how this happened? >> it was bigger than we expected in the electoral college. he swept the battleground

states. the states he lost was in north carolina which he had won by 14,000 votes, and indiana, which was considered a fluke. the set of assumptions the obama campaign was operating on was correct. the set of assumptions the romney campaign was operated on at was nine. obama's theory about the campaign turned out to be correct and the battleground states fell his way. >> north carolina was the only battleground state that romney won. >> that is correct. florida is still out. this year is turned out to be irrelevant. what did the republicans miss? >> practically anybody who was brown or black, procter we anybody who believes that immigration is an issue that needs to be tackled. was a case where the republican party is stampeding towards prevalence if they don't catch up to the new america and the changing demographics. you cannot have a ruling

coalition that is virtually all white. you had president obama put together this new rising coalition and put together enough of the old democratic coalition to win. he got more than 7% of hispanics -- 70% of hispanics. young voters. the republicans are missing the idea of trying to expand their percentage of a shrinking

electorate. this is becoming a majority- minority nation. this is probably the last time the republicans love a chance to win like this. >> let's talk about why this happened. how about mitt romney? how did he try to reach out to these people? >> i was talking earlier about the fundamental assumptions underlying the campaign. romney's campaign believes the economy was basically going to be the single biggest reason that would turn voters away from the president. there was an attack ad and that message, they could reach women and hispanics and that assertion on its face seems like a pretty reasonable assertion. we knew no present have been reelected since world war ii with unemployment so high. obama changed the rule. he said he realized that unemployment was where it is but he will change the nature of the electorate. >> he is the first incumbent

president since and jackson to be reelected with fewer votes than he got the first time. he will win with low 300 electoral votes. that is hardly a landslide. it is his mandate? -- what is his mandate? he did say, "elect me because that other guy is really scummy." he is overseeing a polarized electorate. we are a very clean the electorate. in walks president obama who now has to -- now has a second chance to fill the promises of his first election, which were to forge a consensus across the aisle to solve the big problems in this country. the election was too much about the small things. >> a stark reminder of the present cost challenge going forward. he won independence in 2008 but he lost them last night. he got out democrats. the center of this country preferred romney. >> the center of the country is tired of the status quo and

voted for the status quo. we have the same ruling structure. >> mitt romney did not present a tempting alternative, as beth put it in one of her stories. one place that will start is the republican primaries. that was an interesting process this year with interesting people running. it pushed mitt romney into places he did not want to go to. what can republicans do about that? >> romney saw he could get to his right of his rivals who are more conservative or immigration. he used that issue some would say to excess see himself as the most conservative person in the race. >> severely conservative. >> he finds himself running with a gap of hispanic voters that is not sustainable and he cannot recover from that. >> is going to be a civil war starting this morning in the republican party. it will be a blast to cover. we'll have a contest between

the priest and mathematicians in the republican party. the priest think there is no compromise and that we have to preserve our core american values and not compromise on the debt. cut spending and did not balance the budget by raising taxes. that is the priest. then there is the mathematician. "texas b a swing states. -- will be a swing state." people like chris christie. the mathematicians solid he reached across party lines and had a voice and that maybe he is a chance to become the nominee. or chris christie could be an independent candidate. that will happen if the democrats and republicans do not get their acts together. >> do some pilaf and start compromising -- do some people off and start compromising? the president had a speech last night that he would get to, ground on immigration. what do you think the prospects are? guest: you covered jeb bush in florida. >> he has been a leading

mathematician. he said the republican party needs to embrace immigration reform, not just for political reasons but for economic reasons. there is common ground when it comes to immigration on the one aspect of immigration reform that deals with high skilled workers. we need to make sure the brightest who come here to get educated are staying here. because of the other issues involving immigration, border security, folks not highly skilled, that muddies the water. perhaps this election will be the frying pan on the head of the republican party. >> there was talk about romney's change in tone. talk about this message versus substance debate they will probably have to have. should they just be nicer to hispanics? >> the public is more informed than it ever has been because of the internet.

we are not getting the job done here in washington. the same is true for the democrats. i was struck by the president's speech. he's never followed up on the 2008 speech.

he was not able to fill those lofty promises. he was very powerful. humility. he said, "i heard you" and "you may meet a better president." that was a past tense. his task is to show he can walk the walk. can he reach out to democrats in this environment? can he get up to capitol hill and do the hard work of governing and roll up his sleeves and humble himself in his office by spending time on capitol hill? can he live up to his words?

a working relationship. >> he did say he wanted to talk to mitt romney about the future of the country. >> if he wants a third term through hillary clinton or joe biden, he darn well better do it. they had better grab the olive branch. republicans are tired of this. >> a big theme was the so-called

war on women.

and the size issues like abortion and contraception -- emphasize issues like abortion and contraception. these issues usually -- you know what i'm talking about. if anybody knows missouri or indiana. what was going on on the campaign trail was extraordinary. you could see in the exit polling that the republican party is out of step with the majority of americans. i have some numbers here for you. 2/3 of the people said abortions to be legal most are all the time.

these are issues -- on the issues involving women, what needs to happen for republicans to make some inroads here? >> well, what i was going to say was that the very aggressive ads run by the obama campaign, planned parenthood on abortion -- the reason i think they were effective is that helped to paint that picture of mitt romney as a guy you could not live with. people were disappointed in obama. there were open to an alternative. under the scenario of those ads, abortion would be illegal in all cases. birth control would be hidden in the back of the warehouse.

they painted a doomsday scenario for women which in some cases really stretched the truth. we can see that it seems to have worked. >> i agree with all of that. the president was very effective on the people in my career targeting their constituencies, bourbon women -- suburban women, hispanics. very effective at micro targeting. listen to speeches and watch him change the targets, change

who he was micra targeting. watching it was very impressive. he lost the ability to speak to the nation as a unifier. he could have a mandate to lead. it was a great way to build a coalition and he is now the president again. he doesn't have a mandate. he has a chance. he has to pull out of the micro targeting, as effective as it

might be. i got in the cab this morning to come here. "would you mind turning on any new station? i don't care which.' he he said no. he will not listen to the radio today.

he doesn't like the guy who became the president of the united states. it is not good for the country or for president obama. he has to recapture what he had in 2008 with his rhetoric and his action to speak to people. >> could he have won any other way? >> probably not. unemployment is about 8%. now when you aren't african-

american in a country that still has racial issues. he ran the way he thought he had to do to win. >> it is reminiscent of 2004. we had a similar situation with an incumbent. warent after john kerry's record. >> what did president bush do? he claimed a mandate he didn't have on iraq and it sank his presidency. sorry to interrupt. >> is there a number to sum up the election? 47%.

a moment to sum up the obama campaign, it was the first debate. these were self-inflicted wounds that these candidates may to themselves. much influence do you think they had? >> i think the 47% was a pretty big deal. democrats have been laying the groundwork with these attack ads portraying romney as the guy who cared about the middle class and was interested in protecting rich people like himself. romney sort of betrayed himself. the democrats seized on that. it happened at a time when romney's candidacy was floundering. the first debate, he was able to put that 47% behind him, but the damage was done.

>> he put that behind him in his first debate. he spent all that money and allow time characterizing romney as an uncaring monster. all the sudden he looked reasonable. he looked like somebody who could be president. the president did not bring his a game. part of it was, romney had a huge advantage going into it. any challenger in the first debate wins by just showing up. it was a hyper advantage for romney. all romney had to do was not look that evil. >> he had been to about 20 debates. >> the debate brought the election back to where it had been.

it was really close. neither one would get a mandate. >> the democratic convention was a pretty interesting moment. democrats were not as dispirited. the debate you raised that impression, but not entirely. the republicans had a 1950's view of america. nuclear family. that is how their nominees have been. democrats come from dysfunctional homes and triumph over nontraditional circumstances. it is a different world. i think it led to some under estimation of the democratic coalition. >> the underlying assumption of romney's campaign. they cannot turn out what they did in 2008. young people cannot turn out

like they did in 2008 when somebody cannot find a job, and yet they did. that knocked the republicans on their heels. hispanics and young people increased their share. >> there are a lot of democrats could take the same view you do, that republicans are hurting themselves by putting in candidates that did not

represent the 1950's style nuclear family. there are a lot of people that live in a 19th of the's style nuclear family or want to. i don't think republican candidates have done poorly because they were not blue- collar enough. their policies and messages were not connecting. >> it is what you convey in terms of people. we are going to move to questions in a moment. that talk about the money was spent on the campaign. why don't we go to the audience? who has a question? >> hi.

i was looking at the tracking poll. after the first campaign, romney was ahead for a it little bit. around halloween, the sandy news started to kick in. president obama went ahead by point or less. how do you see sandy play in? >> it robbed the challenger. it brought them for 3 or four days, six news cycles. the core issue was the economy. he wasn't able to get that message through for a few days. to some voters, it probably reminded some voters that this guy is reaching across party lines and reaching to the

governor from new jersey. they're sitting in for the first time. i think it did help obama by freezing things for a few days and giving him that commander in chief aura. >> there is an important role that the federal government plays. romney and paul ryan talked about the government needs to get out of the way.

>> romney specifically said he would cut fema. >> the last thing people want when catastrophe strikes is the government to get out of the way. >> some people remember obama came in in the middle of a crisis and he was cool headed. they were reminded that this guy doesn't react as much emotionally as we like to see, when a crisis hits, he is the guy we would like to see. >> over here to your stage right.

hi. what will be president obama's 3 legacy initiatives? what luck willie have getting those through to the congress? >> i'll take two. an interview with "the des moines register." he talked about immigration. he can get that done if he plays his cards right. he thought he could get a grand bargain. that will be harder to have a balanced approach to fighting what is -- that is two. >> i would think a third legacy would be a health-care. republicans have been saying

all these things are going to happen under obamacare. now was on the evidence starts to come and. >> he always will be the first african-american president. relationships reproved is something we will look back on. >> he wants to reform the tax code. is another area where there could be more than a fleeting impact. has he learned horrible or negotiation -- has he learned hardball or negotiation? >> bob carr. you talk about extending the olive branch. to whom should he hand it? >> speaker boehner and eric cantor are not going anywhere. interesting to see how they

danced together. will they be leading the party or the extreme right of the party? that will be something to watch. >> there have been some chastening experience is in the senate watch. that is an open question about whether there will be room for compromise. >> obama should open up to every wing in the party to show he is trying. >> one thing obama learned with sandy is how far perks can go. maybe we'll see more republicans going to the white house. >> small gestures matter. i believe mandates are earned

after election day. heat reappointed mike mansfield to ambassador in japan. it was a small thing but it showed the democrats that maybe this is a guy we should listen to. it wouldn't hurt him. a matter who won, she would recommend they get into his limousine and get back to the capital and show some humility and grace. that was good advice for mitt romney and 4 president obama. question right here. >> thank you. one of the constituencies the obama has put on the back shelf is a business. he made a promise that he would double exports within the last four years, but never reached out to industry, other than the auto industry and some of the larger manufacturers.

how do you see the next four years? do you think he will be the manufacturing industry to help accomplish what he wants to? >> yes. yesterday he said, "i heard you. i will be a better president." >> cornell woolridge. i was curious with the expansion of the latino votes. bush made inroads along religious lines with the catholic community. i'm wondering what is going to be the next way to make inroads to that community. >> i think that is the frying pan hitting the republican party on the head today, the latino vote. it wasn't as if the right thing was not on the wall. -- it was not as if the writing was not on the wall.

this is the fastest growing share of the electorate. >> george bush reached out to the hispanic community. could they teach the republican leadership now? >> that is a two-part effort. is in a tone of our policy? i think it has to be both. marco rubio -- jeb bush was his mentor. he was telling the party line on immigration. he didn't make illegal immigrants sound like the enemy. someone asked about common ground. another area we will see action is a dream act type legislation where marco rubio has put something fourth and i thing that might be an area where

public opinion polls show most people agree, then people brought here should be able to stay. >> we saw with jeb bush and george bush that hispanics share a lot of values with the republican party. if he did not push them away, you could grow the vote. if mitt romney, all he did was have the same percentage of the hispanic vote as george bush did, he would be president right now. they blew it. look at what the bushes did. a lot of that was showing you are willing to listen. >> the bushes had major

substance behind their tone. comprehensive immigration reform for people that were already here. that will be the price of admission for the republican party. there has been a lot of movement towards trying to prove the border has been closed, it is not as bad as the problem as it has been. we're not going to have this problem in the future. that is the prerequisite a lot of republicans have put on it. we will see if it is good enough. or drive them to compromise. other questions? >> thinking about the progressive coalition that led the win for obama. obama does not act like a true

progressive. what is going to owe them or give them? presumably they will expect something. the payback on the standpoint of the progressive community. some of that is at odds with what we're talking about as an olive branch to the republicans. what is going on from obama pragmatically? do they have enough power to extract what they wanted? >> put yourself in barack obama's shoes. now you're thinking about your legacy. you also are thinking about what is good for the country. most folks elected to office want to do the right thing.

"i got to do something big and be remembered for something." maybe he is not thinking about what he owes the progressive. >> he has already given them a

lot. donna stone tel -- don't ask, don't tell, dream act. >> a safety net for the left as well as the right. >> supreme court justices. >> that is a good point. that was a big thing. >> any thoughts on climate change? that was the issue that was not discussed during the campaign. politics has not changed. do you see any room for compromise? >> that is another way the storm may have played a role, if only to move the needle a little bit. mayor bloomberg can not to endorse the president largely on that issue.

the freak storm ravaged new york city. when storms like that happen, it does help consensus. i do not think that will be at the top of the agenda. immigration reform is probably more of the momentum behind that. >> there are two issues that have changed dramatically, 180 degrees.

one is gay rights. this country went to a much broader acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage. just stunning. part is a democratic shift. the other is a climate change. there was a big movement among evangelicals to save the lord's earth, to save the greatest gift we were given. it made a lot of sense with the far right's agenda. it has been turned into the exact opposite. climate change is happening and it is partially caused by human kind. that is happening just a few years after both parties in a pretty wide degree that something had to be done for different reasons. stunning. >> somebody was compiling the best tweets of the campaign. "i agree with the scientific consensus on global warming. call me crazy." that's where things were. there could be changes to the party.

>> it may take the economy to get more on track before the resistance to that eases up. >> true. any other questions?

>> good morning. the effect of redistricting and the relationship of congress and the president's. i live in maryland. seven of the eight winners -- maryland is now seven to one democrat to republican. if winners will have 60% of the vote, i see no reason to compromise. how do you see this may be changing or having to change in the future? i see no need to compromise because my constituents are voting me in. >> it is the most pernicious problem with our democracy right now. there are too many congressmen and women who all they have to worry about is not being primaried. ory're protecting their left right flank. they have no incentive to compromise. that is a big problem. >> we may see some kind backlash against the tea party. publicans had high hopes about taking back the senate.

at some of the losses like dick lugar in indiana and in delaware -- these were tea party-inspired victories that some might argue cost republicans the potential to control the senate. maybe there will be a reaction to that. >> the senate is tied up by the filibuster and how. the house writes the checks. it is dominated by people that care too much about appeasing the far right or the fiat -- far left. >> i think a lot will depend on john boehner and legacy he

wants to leave and what kind of freedom he wants to give. there was such an enforcement of party discipline. that was the policy. they wanted to make obama a one-term president. if they want to win the presidency in 2016 -- >> they have to listen to the tea party or the far left if they want to win their seat. they want to hang onto their jobs. wearing about my job. -- just worrying about my job. that is the attitude they take. >> i'm seeing it wrapup sign in front of me.

it is the beginning of something new. we just elected a president. thank you very much for coming. >> thank you, everybody. >>everybody get up and stretch. thank you very much. i wanted to make sure you had a chance to stretch. this has been a fund election

to watch. a president gen it is only as good as a congress that will or will not work with him. saw a pretty tumultuous environment. democrats picked up three republican-held seats. joe donnelly in indiana. in massachusetts, elizabeth warren beat scott brown. republicans picked up the nebraska seat. deb fischer will be the new senator. there are some races that yet to be called. give us your lay of the land. what happened last night? >> i was driving on last night on rock creek parkway and listening to c-span because i could not turn off the story. a woman called in from missouri. she went on about how awful it was with the increasing number of abortions and we need to go back to biblical values. that is what we needed in the country. the moderator asked about todd akin's defeat.

"i voted for claire mccaskill." the big picture for me, will affect my life is that obamacare has to digest the latest in a succession of bullets. obamacare now gets an opportunity to work. if it works, universal health care can be something in this country down the road. a lot of details attached to be solved. states have to decide if they are going to do exchanges. you don't have a republican president or senate. that was the one big possibly historic change that we saw.

>> it is easy to give your head around what happened in the senate. it is harder to keep your head around the races in the house. take us through with the house stands. >> democrats having picked up one seat, but that might have changed. a lot of races are still out, including some on the west coast.

there were almost two elections going on last night. republicans are running rampant in the south. providing any larger foundation for the majority they are going to have. in the northeast, you had the opposite going on. democratic incumbents in rhode island and massachusetts with extraordinary liabilities. you saw similar things happen on the west coast. both parties were further out in different parts of the country geographically and ideologically. >> this also happened farther down the ballot. the arkansas state has gone republican. the state house has gone republican, which will leave democrats without a single legislative chamber in the old confederacy for the first time

since the civil war. there is that migration. it happened in the senate where you have the incumbents who lost, scott brown, in a state that obama won with 60%. >> you talk about claire mccaskill and talk about joe donnelly in indiana.

since i was a young reporter, it is a big important part of the game. if he took -- if you went back to last january, will rule the coming election, everybody was said super pacs, money, money, money. the republicans had a few losers and it showed on election night. that was a big lesson i took away. how pros can change the game. >> look at north dakota. montana -- the republicans were not happy with the race until the last month of the election. even in arizona, there was a

recruiting class of one. democrats were not going to touch the state. republican spend $4 million or $5 million to save flake. >> there is no reason why they should be elected democrat. talk to grover norquist. this is what he says. i have to find out what is in the water. >> you do a pretty good grover impression. >> there were some democrats that survived that should not have. >> one candidate that to buy that is in georgia, the beneficiary of an inept

republican challenger. he probably ran the best tv campaign. the seven democrats have to run the gamut appealing to the black liberal base in their district while appealing to the median voter that is white and conservative. he ran these ads you have to watch that appeal to inner-city black liberals and rural whites and a fascinating way. he outperform the republican, where mitt romney won 50%. mcintyre is deadlock with his challenger. he ran a stellar campaign. mcintyre could run for chairman of the republican party committee. >> the advertisement was with

john barrow features him with his gun and that nobody would take it away from him. his grandfather used his gun to stop a lynching. fascinating way to thread that needle. one of the better ads of the year. we have scorecards for every major group on hot line. you can see how they did. the chamber of commerce and the nra didn't do all that great. they endorsed two democrats. >> chambers spent $4 million trying to defeat tim kaine of virginia. >> north of $3 million in the

hawaii race. the race problem wasn't a race to begin with. let's go back to obamacare. what was at stake? >> aside from obamacare, you have three supreme court justices that could come up. ginsburg is 79. kennedy, and scalia are 76. bryer is 74. that could possibly give obama two more supreme court picks. i think the senate is going to be slightly more liberal, the more radical, a lot more female. my sister once read a vote by a harvard professor called "it woman's way of knowing" and to

suggest the women have a different way of negotiating than men. with 23 women in the senate, things may get done.

you also have a lot of energy of new senators. there is a big scramble up there. my overriding role is that if you are thinking about the fiscal cliff right now, what you are in the white house or you are the mitch mcconnell, you have to consider that voters in exit polls are saying that they're willing to take higher taxes, but they think government is too big. it is there. it is within reach. but john boehner has t